ABSTRACT

So, for example, in Wheat v Lacon & Co Ltd (1966) the defendants owned a public house, although the day-to-day running of the pub was conducted by a manager. The defendants granted the manager a licence to use the fi rst fl oor of the property as private accommodation, but the defendants retained a right to repair. They also allowed the manager to take paying guests in part of the accommodation. One such guest fell down the unlit stairs of the private part and was killed as result of the fall. In determining who could be an occupier for the purposes of liability, the House of Lords held that there could be more than one occupier, so both the brewery and the manager could have been liable. However, on the facts, a light bulb from the stairs had been removed by an unidentifi able third party and the defendants were not therefore held to be in breach of the duty owed. It has also been established that an occupier does not have to be in actual physical occupation of premises for them to have a suffi cient degree of control (see Harris v Birkenhead Corporation (1976)).