Panesh Chimanlal Mistry v Thakor & Ors

Panesh Chimanlal Mistry v Thakor & Ors

The owners/landlords were liable in nuisance because they had actual and imputed knowledge of the dangerous condition of the building, failed to act on professional advice to investigate and remedy the defect, and their inaction was a causative breach of duty. The property manager's failure to properly inspect and advise was also a negligent breach of duty. The apportionment of liability (80% Roberts, 20% Thakors) was appropriate and should not be disturbed.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Panesh Chimanlal Mistry; First Defendant/part 20 Claimant/appellant: Bahadursinh Prarapsinh Thakor; Second Defendant/part 20 Claimant/appellant: Hasmukhben Bahadursinh Thakor; First Part 20 Defendant/appellant: Michael Roberts; Third Defendant/second Part 20 Defendant: Carphone Warehouse UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Liability and Apportionment
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Nuisance, Negligence, Liability of Landlords, Imputed Knowledge, Apportionment of Liability
Tort Law Landlord and Tenant Law Nuisance Negligence Liability of Landlords Imputed Knowledge Apportionment of Liability

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Panesh Chimanlal Mistry

Claimant/respondent

Bahadursinh Prarapsinh Thakor

First Defendant/part 20 Claimant/appellant

Hasmukhben Bahadursinh Thakor

Second Defendant/part 20 Claimant/appellant

Michael Roberts

First Part 20 Defendant/appellant

Carphone Warehouse UK Limited

Third Defendant/second Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Liability and Apportionment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the owners/landlords (Mr and Mrs Thakor) are liable in nuisance for injuries caused by falling concrete panels from their property
  2. 2 Whether knowledge of the property manager (Mr Roberts) is imputed to the owners for the purposes of liability
  3. 3 Whether the owners discharged their duty by instructing a professional property manager

Ratio Decidendi

The owners/landlords were liable in nuisance because they had actual and imputed knowledge of the dangerous condition of the building, failed to act on professional advice to investigate and remedy the defect, and their inaction was a causative breach of duty. The property manager's failure to properly inspect and advise was also a negligent breach of duty. The apportionment of liability (80% Roberts, 20% Thakors) was appropriate and should not be disturbed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals of Mr and Mrs Thakor and Mr Roberts dismissed
  • Costs to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed