Sternbaum v Dhesi

Sternbaum v Dhesi

The absence of a handrail on the staircase did not constitute disrepair. The staircase, though steep and hazardous, was not in a worse physical state than when constructed or at the start of the tenancy. The landlord's duty under section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 does not extend to making the premises safe or improving them, only to repairing disrepair. Therefore, no duty to install a handrail arose and the claim fails.

Parties
Appellant: Nili Sternbaum; Respondent: Bal Binder Dhesi
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Defective Premises Act 1972, Landlord's Duty to Repair, Statutory Duty of Care, Disrepair Vs. Unsafe Condition, Interpretation of Tenancy Covenants
Landlord and Tenant Law Tort Law Defective Premises Act 1972 Landlord's Duty to Repair Statutory Duty of Care Disrepair Vs. Unsafe Condition Interpretation of Tenancy 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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nili Sternbaum

Appellant

Bal Binder Dhesi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the absence of a handrail constituted disrepair under section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972
  2. 2 Whether the landlord was under a duty to repair or improve the staircase by installing a handrail
  3. 3 Whether the duty to repair extends to putting premises into repair at the start of the tenancy

Ratio Decidendi

The absence of a handrail on the staircase did not constitute disrepair. The staircase, though steep and hazardous, was not in a worse physical state than when constructed or at the start of the tenancy. The landlord's duty under section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 does not extend to making the premises safe or improving them, only to repairing disrepair. Therefore, no duty to install a handrail arose and the claim fails.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed