Dodd v Raebarn Estates Ltd & Ors

Dodd v Raebarn Estates Ltd & Ors

The staircase and common parts were demised to the tenant under the headlease, so Raebarn was not an occupier and owed no duty under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. The absence of a handrail, even if dangerous and in breach of building regulations, did not constitute a 'relevant defect' under the Defective Premises Act 1972 because there was no disrepair, only a design or construction defect. Raebarn had no duty to inspect or ensure compliance with building regulations, and no common law duty arose. The claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and had no real prospect of success.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Megan Louise Dodd; Defendant/respondent: Raebarn Estates Limited; Defendant/respondent: Raebarn Estates (No.2) Limited; Defendant/respondent: Raebarn Estates (No.3) Limited; Defendant/respondent: Southwind Holdings Limited; Defendant/respondent: 194-196 Kensington Park Road 1995 Limited; Defendant/respondent: Marcelo Roque Pereira
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment and Strike Out Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; summary judgment for defendants upheld
Legal Topics
Occupiers’ Liability, Defective Premises, Common Law Negligence, Lease Interpretation, Repairing Covenants
Tort Law Landlord and Tenant Law Property Law Occupiers’ Liability Defective Premises Common Law Negligence Lease Interpretation Repairing Covenants

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Megan Louise Dodd

Claimant/appellant

Raebarn Estates Limited

Defendant/respondent

Raebarn Estates (No.2) Limited

Defendant/respondent

Raebarn Estates (No.3) Limited

Defendant/respondent

Southwind Holdings Limited

Defendant/respondent

194-196 Kensington Park Road 1995 Limited

Defendant/respondent

Marcelo Roque Pereira

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment and Strike Out Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freeholder (Raebarn) owed a duty of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, Defective Premises Act 1972, or at common law for injuries caused by a staircase lacking a handrail in demised premises
  2. 2 Whether the headlease demised the staircase and common parts to the tenant, excluding the landlord from liability as occupier
  3. 3 Whether the absence of a handrail constituted a 'relevant defect' under the DPA 1972

Ratio Decidendi

The staircase and common parts were demised to the tenant under the headlease, so Raebarn was not an occupier and owed no duty under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. The absence of a handrail, even if dangerous and in breach of building regulations, did not constitute a 'relevant defect' under the Defective Premises Act 1972 because there was no disrepair, only a design or construction defect. Raebarn had no duty to inspect or ensure compliance with building regulations, and no common law duty arose. The claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and had no real prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; summary judgment for defendants upheld

Orders

  • Claim struck out
  • Summary judgment for Raebarn Estates Limited and related defendants