Kanwarjit Singh Juj v John Lewis Partnership Plc

Under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957, an occupier’s duty is measured by reasonable safety and by the occupier’s degree of control. A party sharing occupation may owe a limited duty confined to hazards it can address; it is not responsible for redesigning or closing premises outside its control. There is no general duty to warn of an obvious, visible danger. For an alleged omission, causation requires a counterfactual inquiry into what would have happened if the act had been done. Appellate courts must respect trial findings, including factual evaluations and inferences, unless plainly wrong.

The claimant brought a personal injury claim after falling on a kerb beside a disabled parking bay at a Waitrose car park. The local authority owned the car park, while the defendant had no legal interest in it but exercised some practical control. The trial judge found the defendant to be an occupier with limited responsibilities, but held that any failure to report earlier accidents was not causative and gave judgment for the defendant.

Ellenbogen J upheld the result on appeal, although she differed on aspects of the defendant’s control and the obviousness of the danger. On second appeal, the central issues were the scope of the defendant’s duty, the proper approach to appellate interference with factual findings, and whether earlier reporting would have avoided the accident.

Appeal dismissed. Ground 2 was allowed because the High Court judge had substituted her own view of the risk without the requisite threshold for appellate interference being met. That did not affect the overall result, because the trial judge’s findings independently justified dismissal of the claim.

1. Occupier and control. Under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957, the common duty is to take reasonable care in all the circumstances to ensure that visitors are reasonably safe. The status of an occupier, and the scope of its responsibility, depend on the nature and extent of its control. The defendant was an occupier, but its control was limited to immediate hazards, interim measures and reporting matters to Hillingdon. It had no responsibility for the design, construction or layout of the bay, or for long-term structural changes.
2. Appellate restraint. An appellate court should not interfere with primary findings, factual evaluations or inferences unless compelled to do so or satisfied that the judge was plainly wrong. The approach stated in Staechelin & others v ACLBDD Holdings Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 817, Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5 and McGraddie v McGraddie [2013] UKSC 58 was applicable.
3. Obvious danger and causation. The kerb was visible and known to the claimant. There was no general requirement to warn of it, and the defendant could not reasonably be expected to close or redesign the bay. The claimant’s fall resulted from misjudging an ordinary manoeuvre, which was fatal to the claim. The trial judge was also entitled to find that earlier reporting would not have changed Hillingdon’s position. The counterfactual approach in Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1998] AC 232 was consistent with that reasoning.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On second appeal, Ground 2 was allowed, but the overall appeal was dismissed: [2023] EWCA Civ 1507.
• High Court: Ellenbogen J upheld the judgment for the defendant, while differing from the trial judge on aspects of the defendant’s control and the risk posed.
• Central London County Court: HHJ Backhouse found the defendant to be an occupier with limited control, but held that the alleged breach was not causative and gave judgment for the defendant.