## Facts

- The case clarified the concept of an "occupier" for the purposes of liability in tort law.
- In Wheat v Lacon, it was established that control over premises, not just ownership, determines who the occupier is.
- The definition of "premises" under the Occupiers' Liability Acts extends to land, buildings, vessels, vehicles, and aircraft.
- More than one party may simultaneously be considered an occupier depending on the degree of control each exercises over the premises.

## Issues

1. What constitutes an "occupier" for the purposes of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957?
2. Can more than one party simultaneously owe a duty of care as occupier under the Act?
3. What is the extent of liability and duties owed by occupiers to lawful visitors and non-visitors?

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that an "occupier" is any person with a sufficient degree of control over premises, not limited solely to the owner.
- It was established that more than one person may owe concurrent duties if each has relevant control over the premises.
- The nature and extent of the duty depend on the specific circumstances and the degree of control exercised by each occupier.

## Legal Principles

- "Occupier" is defined by sufficient control, not merely ownership or possession.
- Multiple parties can be occupiers at the same time and thus share duty of care to visitors.
- The duty owed by occupiers under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 is to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of visitors, according to the extent of their control over the premises.
- The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 applies broadly to any fixed or movable structure defined as "premises."

## Conclusion

Wheat v Lacon established that the duty under occupiers' liability is not restricted to property owners, but applies to all who have sufficient control of premises, with multiple parties potentially bearing responsibility for the safety of visitors under the Occupiers' Liability Acts.


Wheat v Lacon [1966] AC 552