Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd [1966] UKHL 1

A paying guest died after falling down an unlit staircase in a pub's private quarters. The House of Lords established that 'occupation' under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 relates to control, and that multiple parties (here, the brewery and manager) can be concurrent occupiers.

Facts

The respondents, E. Lacon & Co. Ltd., a brewery company, owned a public house, ‘The Golfer’s Arms’. They entered into a service agreement with Mr. Richardson to manage the pub. Mr. and Mrs. Richardson occupied a private flat on the first floor but were not tenants. The agreement permitted them to take in paying guests. The appellant’s husband, Mr. Wheat, was a paying guest staying with the Richardsons. He sustained fatal injuries when he fell down a staircase connecting the private first-floor quarters to the bar area on the ground floor. The accident occurred at night when the staircase was unlit, as a lightbulb at the top had been removed by an unknown person. The handrail did not extend to the bottom of the staircase.

Issues

The central legal issue was the identity of the ‘occupier’ of the first-floor premises, specifically the staircase, for the purposes of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. The appellant argued that the brewery company were the occupiers and had breached their common duty of care. The key questions were:
1. Who is an ‘occupier’ under the Act?
2. Can there be more than one occupier of the same premises?
3. If the brewery were occupiers, had they breached their duty of care to the deceased?

Judgment

The House of Lords held that the brewery, E. Lacon & Co. Ltd., were indeed an occupier of the premises, alongside their manager, Mr. Richardson. The appeal was, however, dismissed on the grounds that, on the facts, the brewery had not breached its duty of care.

Who is an Occupier?

Lord Denning provided a definitive test for ‘occupation’, stating it was based on control rather than exclusive possession. He explained:

wherever a person has a sufficient degree of control over premises that he ought to realise that any failure on his part to use care may result in injury to a person coming lawfully there, then he is an ‘ occupier ‘ and the person coming lawfully there is his ‘ visitor ‘: and the ‘ occupier ‘ is under a duty to his ‘ visitor ‘ to use reasonable care.

He further clarified that a person does not need complete or exclusive control to be an occupier. The brewery retained significant control: they owned the premises, had the right to enter to view the state of the pub and do repairs, and had an interest in the business of receiving paying guests as it was a means for their manager to make an income.

Multiple Occupiers

The Court confirmed that it is possible for more than one person to be an occupier of the same premises simultaneously. Lord Denning stated:

There is no difficulty in having more than one occupier at one and the same time, each of whom is under a duty of care to visitors. You may have one occupier of the structure and another of the activity. But, in addition, you may have more than one occupier of the structure. … In the present case, in my opinion, the brewers, E. Lacon & Co. Ltd., were ‘ occupiers ‘ of the public house, and so was the manager, Mr. Richardson.

Breach of Duty

Despite finding that the brewery was an occupier, the court concluded they had not breached their duty. The duty of care is to take such care as in all the circumstances is reasonable. The structural issue of the short handrail was a responsibility of the brewery, but this alone was not held to be the cause of the accident. The primary cause was the darkness resulting from the removal of the lightbulb. The court found that this was likely done by a stranger, and it was not an act for which the brewery could be held responsible. The lighting system itself was not defective, and daily maintenance, such as replacing bulbs, fell within the manager’s remit. As Lord Pearce noted, ‘The respondents had no reason to foresee that a stranger would remove the bulb.’

Implications

This case is a foundational authority on the concept of ‘occupation’ within the law of tort and specifically under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. It established that occupation is determined by the degree of control a person or entity has over the premises. Its most significant contribution is the principle that there can be concurrent occupiers of the same premises, each with a duty of care to visitors. The scope of each occupier’s duty will depend on the nature and extent of their control. The decision provides clarity that legal ownership or exclusive possession is not a prerequisite for liability as an occupier.

Verdict: The appeal was dismissed. The brewery (E Lacon & Co Ltd) was found to be an occupier but was held not to have breached its duty of care.

Source: Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd [1966] UKHL 1