Hannon v Hillingdon Homes Ltd

A landlord’s repairing covenant extending to the structure of a dwelling may include safety features integral to a staircase, including bannisters. Their removal by a tenant does not prevent the absence from being a relevant defect under section 4 of the Defective Property Act 1972 where the repairing covenant is unqualified. Liability may arise where the landlord knew or ought to have known of the defect. A landlord’s right to enter and inspect or repair may also engage section 4(4). A visitor who uses stairs reasonably is not contributorily negligent merely because he moves quickly in response to an apparent emergency.

The claimant, a heating engineer employed by a contractor, fell while descending an unguarded staircase during urgent boiler maintenance at a property owned and managed by the defendant. The bannisters on the open side of the staircase had been removed by the tenant many years earlier.

The claimant brought proceedings in negligence and under the Defective Property Act 1972. The issues were causation, contributory negligence, and whether the defendant was liable under section 4 despite the tenant’s removal of the bannisters and the alleged absence of notice.

1. Causation. The absence of bannisters caused the accident. The claimant’s use of the stairs was reasonable, since he was responding urgently to a possible boiler fault. He was not the author of his own misfortune.
2. Contributory negligence. The claimant was not contributorily negligent. The purpose of bannisters was to protect a person who slipped while using the stairs reasonably. His descent was not unduly risky or foolhardy, and the slip could have occurred without haste.
3. Structure. The staircase formed part of the structure of the two-storey house because it was essential to its appearance, stability, shape and identity. The bannisters were an integral part of the staircase. They therefore fell within the defendant’s repairing covenant to keep the structure in repair and proper working order. The court relied on the reasoning in Hastie v City of Edinburgh District Council and related authorities, together with the Building Regulations’ treatment of handrails as part of safe stair construction.
4. Relevant defect. The tenant’s removal of the bannisters occurred after the statutory material time. Their absence was a defect continuing because the party responsible for repairs had failed to replace them or require their replacement. The defendant’s unqualified repairing covenant extended to disrepair caused by the tenant, subject to the defendant’s contractual ability to recover the cost from the tenant.
5. Notice and liability. Notice was sufficiently established through repeated visits by maintenance personnel, including agents and direct employees. Notice need not be written. In any event, section 4(4) applied because the landlord had rights to enter, inspect and repair, and liability arose from the time when it could put itself in a position to exercise those rights.
6. Order. Judgment was entered for the claimant on liability under section 4 of the Defective Property Act 1972. Damages were not to be reduced for contributory negligence.