Factual and Procedural Background
The case concerns a claim for damages for personal injuries suffered by the Plaintiff, aged 40 at the time, following a fall on 5th October 2008 while ascending three steps leading to the front door of a mid-terraced Victorian property owned by the Defendant. The property is located in The City and has a small drop to basement level adjacent to the steps, protected only by a low ornamental concrete wall. The Plaintiff had been granted a tenancy, which was backdated to the date of the accident, and was moving into the property with the assistance of a companion, who also provided witness evidence.
It is alleged that the steps were unduly slippery due to a combination of paint applied by the Defendant, wet conditions, and dirt. Additionally, the low height of the adjacent wall without a guardrail was claimed to be inadequate protection against a dangerous fall to the basement level. The Plaintiff asserts breaches of statutory duties under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957, the Defective Premises Act 1972, breaches of repairing covenants in the tenancy agreement, and common law negligence. Both parties presented lay and expert evidence, including conflicting witness statements and expert reports on the condition and slipperiness of the steps.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Defendant breached the duty of care under Section 2 of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957.
- Whether the Defendant breached repairing covenants in the tenancy agreement and/or Section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972.
- Whether the Defendant owed and breached a duty of care at common law independent of statutory duties.
- The extent and nature of the Defendant’s duty as a landlord regarding the condition of the steps and the adjacent drop.
- Whether the application of paint to the steps increased the risk of slipping to an actionable degree.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiff's Arguments
- The steps were unduly slippery due to a combination of paint, wet conditions, and dirt, with the paint and wetness being the primary causes.
- The low height of the adjacent wall without a guardrail was insufficient to protect against a dangerous fall to basement level.
- The Defendant breached statutory duties under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 and Defective Premises Act 1972, as well as repairing covenants in the tenancy agreement.
- The Defendant owed a common law duty of care to ensure the steps were safe, particularly given the hazardous drop.
- The steps were not in good repair due to the increased slipperiness caused by the paint, thus requiring repair or removal of the paint.
Defendant's Arguments
- The Defendant maintained the property and steps in good repair, including annual repainting with a concrete floor paint suitable for outdoor use.
- The steps had been painted for cosmetic reasons and no previous complaints or accidents had been reported.
- The low wall adjacent to the steps pre-existed the Defendant’s ownership and was not altered; it was typical of the period and similar to neighbouring properties.
- The Defendant did not owe a duty under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 as the tenancy had commenced and the landlord’s duty is governed primarily by the Defective Premises Act 1972.
- The paint used was not described as non-slip but was appropriate for concrete floors and the Defendant was not negligent in its application.
- The Defendant did not create a new danger but maintained the steps in a condition consistent with their age and use.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Wheat v E Lacon and Company Ltd [1966] AC 552 |
More than one occupier may owe duties; landlord’s right to maintain exterior under lease. |
Confirmed that landlord’s authority to paint steps was supported by lease provisions; multiple occupiers possible. |
| Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991] 1 AC 398 |
House of Lords declined to impose common law duty beyond statutory provisions for defective premises. |
Court held landlord’s duty governed by Defective Premises Act 1972 rather than Occupiers Liability Act 1957. |
| Quick v Taff Ely Borough Council [1986] QB 809 |
Meaning of "repair" involves restoring to previous condition, not making safe. |
Applied to determine that painted steps were not out of repair as paint was additional, not damage. |
| Alker v Collingwood [2007] 1 WLR 2230 |
Landlord’s duty under Defective Premises Act does not require making premises safe from all hazards. |
Court endorsed the view that dangerous features do not necessarily amount to defects requiring repair. |
| Cavalier v Pope [1906] AC 428 |
Landlord owes no common law duty to remedy dangerous conditions existing at the time of letting. |
Held binding; landlord not liable for pre-existing defects absent other roles or duties. |
| Rimmer v Liverpool County Council [1985] 1 QB 1 |
Landlord may owe duty of care when acting in other capacities (e.g., designer/builder). |
Distinguished Cavalier v Pope; duty arose from defendant’s role as builder, not landlord. |
| Targett v Torfaen Borough Council [1992] 3 All ER |
Followed Rimmer; duty owed when landlord also acted as builder/designer. |
Reinforced distinction between landlord duties and other roles. |
| Lips v Older [2005] PIQR P14 |
Common law duty of care owed by landlord to ensure reasonable safety from obvious hazards. |
Persuasive authority for duty of care in circumstances involving dangerous unguarded drop. |
| Sowerby v Charlton [2006] 1 WLR 568 |
Discussed existence of common law duty in similar circumstances involving unguarded basement drop. |
Considered persuasive but not binding authority on duty existence; focused on procedural context. |
| Anns v Merton Borough Council [1978] AC 728 |
Distinguished landlord’s immunity when acting as contractor or builder creating danger. |
Referenced in argument for duty when landlord’s positive actions create risk. |
| Dutton v Bognor Regis Urban District Council [1972] 1 QB 373 |
Distinguished Cavalier v Pope where landlord did not create dangerous condition. |
Supports principle that landlord’s duty depends on creation of danger. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court carefully examined the factual matrix, including the condition of the steps, the nature of the paint applied, and the risk posed by the adjacent drop. It found that the low ornamental wall was a pre-existing feature typical of the period and similar to neighbouring properties. The wall was inadequate to prevent a dangerous fall, but the Defendant had not altered it during ownership.
Regarding the steps, the court accepted that painting them with the B and Q concrete floor paint did increase the risk of slipping when wet, as supported by expert evidence and surface roughness testing. However, the paint was not described as non-slip, nor was its application negligent given its common use and suitability for concrete floors. The court did not find that the painted steps were "not in good repair" since paint was an additional layer and did not constitute damage to the stone.
Statutory duties under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 were held not to apply as the tenancy had commenced, and the landlord’s duty is primarily governed by the Defective Premises Act 1972. The court emphasized that the landlord’s duty under Section 4 of the 1972 Act relates to maintenance and repair, not making premises safe from all hazards.
At common law, the court acknowledged binding authority that landlords owe no duty to remedy pre-existing dangerous conditions (Cavalier v Pope). However, it recognized a potential duty where the landlord creates a new danger through positive acts, such as painting steps in a manner that increases risk.
Despite this, the court concluded that the Defendant’s actions in painting the steps were not negligent or unreasonable, given the nature of the paint and its widespread use. The court found no breach of duty, statutory or common law, by the Defendant in respect of the steps or the unguarded drop.
The court expressed sympathy for the Plaintiff but noted that the remedy for any dissatisfaction with the law lies with the legislature or higher courts, not the present tribunal.
Holding and Implications
The court dismissed the claim against the Defendant, finding no breach of statutory or common law duties in relation to the condition of the steps or the adjacent unguarded drop.
The direct effect of the decision is that the Defendant is not liable for the Plaintiff’s injuries sustained in the fall. The court did not establish any new legal precedent but reaffirmed existing principles regarding landlord duties under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957, the Defective Premises Act 1972, and common law negligence.