Maddocks v Clifton & Anor

Under section 2 of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957, the duty owed by a joint occupier depends on what control that occupier has over the premises. An owner in joint occupation will ordinarily be responsible for structural conditions, whereas transient features and day-to-day matters may fall within another occupier’s responsibility. Liability is not established merely because a feature is unsafe. The relevant question is whether the occupier ought to have known of its physical condition and whether a reasonable person would have appreciated the danger. A prior complaint may support that conclusion. The Court of Appeal dismissed the renewed application for permission to appeal.

Mrs Maddocks was injured when she fell from a dangerous ladder giving access to a loft in a stable block. The property and buildings were owned by the second defendant, while her mother operated a livery business there as a licensee. The county court found the owner to be a joint occupier and gave judgment for the claimant against both defendants.

The second defendant sought permission to appeal, arguing that the finding that the ladder was unsafe did not, without a finding that it was obviously dangerous, establish breach of duty. The central issue was the scope of an owner’s responsibility as a joint occupier for the condition of the premises.

1. The renewed application for permission to appeal was dismissed. The county court’s judgment against the second defendant stood.
2. The second defendant was an occupier because she owned and jointly occupied the stables. Her duty under section 2 of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 was the common duty to take reasonable care to see that visitors were reasonably safe.
3. The extent of a joint occupier’s control is relevant to the nature and extent of the duty. The principle stated in Wheat v Lacon [1966] AC 552 supported distinguishing structural matters from transient or day-to-day matters. A structural feature such as a ladder forming access to the loft was substantially a matter for the owner in joint occupation.
4. A finding that the ladder was unsafe did not automatically establish liability. It was sufficient that the occupier ought to have been aware of the ladder’s physical condition and that a reasonable person would have appreciated the danger. The county court’s finding that the defendant ought to have known of the danger, reinforced by her knowledge of a previous complaint, was unassailable.
5. There was no properly arguable ground with a real prospect of success. Application dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): renewed application for permission to appeal dismissed.
• Liverpool County Court: His Honour Judge Mark Brown gave judgment for the claimant against both defendants.