Sternbaum v Dhesi

A landlord’s duty under section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 extends no further than the repairing obligation owed under the tenancy. A hazardous or outdated feature is not thereby in disrepair. Where the stairs and surrounding fabric are sound, requiring a landlord to install a handrail that was absent at the start of the tenancy is an improvement or a measure to make the premises safe, rather than a repair.

An obligation to keep premises in repair can require disrepair existing at the commencement of the tenancy to be remedied. It does not, however, make a historic alteration or an unsafe design into disrepair.

The respondent landlord let premises to a company in which the appellant had an interest. The appellant fell while using a steep back staircase that had no handrail. The Recorder found that a handrail would have prevented the accident and that the stairs were unsafe, but dismissed the claim under section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972.

The appellant appealed, contending that the missing handrail was part of the structure and that its absence was disrepair which the landlord was obliged to remedy. She also relied on the landlord’s right to enter and repair under section 4(4). The central issue was whether the condition of the staircase amounted to disrepair, rather than merely an unsafe condition.

1. Appeal dismissed. Lady Justice Hallett held, with Lord Justice Briggs and Mr Justice Moylan agreeing, that the staircase was not in disrepair. That conclusion disposed of the claim under section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972.

2. The photographic evidence showed a sound, though steep and narrow, old staircase without a handrail. It was hazardous, but hazard and disrepair are distinct. The court applied the approach in Alker v Collingwood Housing Association [2007] 1 WLR 2230: a repairing obligation is not a general obligation to make premises safe.

3. There had been no handrail at any relevant time. Requiring the landlord to install one would therefore improve the premises or make them safe. It would not repair an existing state of disrepair. The possibility that the staircase had formerly had an open side guarded by a bannister, later replaced by a wall, did not alter that conclusion.

4. The Recorder was wrong if he considered that an obligation to repair never requires a landlord to put premises into repair where they were already out of repair at the commencement of the tenancy. Such an obligation does extend to existing disrepair. That principle did not assist the appellant because this staircase was not out of repair.

5. The court did not finally determine whether a bannister formed part of the structure, or the proper construction of section 4(4). If disrepair had been established, section 4(4) might have assisted the appellant. Those issues were unnecessary to the result. Mr Justice Moylan added that alterations can in some circumstances cause disrepair, but the condition created by the alterations in this case did not do so.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — dismissed the appeal and upheld dismissal of the section 4 claim: [2016] EWCA Civ 155.
• Coventry County Court — Recorder Davies dismissed the claim under section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972, holding that the absence of a handrail did not arise from a failure to repair or maintain.