Squires v Perth and Kinross DC [1985] ScotCS CSIH_5 (11 July 1985)

Squires v Perth and Kinross DC [1985] ScotCS CSIH_5 (11 July 1985)

The defenders, as occupiers in control of the unoccupied flats above a jeweller's shop, owed a duty to take reasonable care to secure those premises against foreseeable use by thieves to access and steal from the shop below. The risk of such a theft was more than a mere possibility; it was very likely, especially after repeated warnings. The defenders breached this duty by failing to secure the property, and this breach was causally connected to the loss suffered by the pursuers. The absence of a special relationship between the defenders and the thief did not negate the duty of care. The sheriff erred in law in holding otherwise.

Citation
[1985] ScotCS CSIH_5
Parties
Pursuer/appellant: Squires (trading as Time Centre); First Defender/respondent (no Longer Party to Appeal): Perth and Kinross District Council; Second Defender/respondent: Second Defenders (building contractors)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 July 1985
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (delict/negligence) / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session (inner House)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; interlocutor of the sheriff recalled; decree granted for pursuers against second defenders for agreed sum.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Foreseeability, Liability for Acts of Third Parties, Causation, Breach of Duty, Occupier's Liability
Delict Negligence Tort Law Duty of Care Foreseeability Liability for Acts of Third Parties Causation Breach of Duty +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Squires (trading as Time Centre)

Pursuer/appellant

Perth and Kinross District Council

First Defender/respondent (no Longer Party to Appeal)

Second Defenders (building contractors)

Second Defender/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (delict/negligence) / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session (inner House)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether occupiers of property owe a duty of care to secure their premises against use by third parties to access and steal from adjoining premises
  2. 2 Whether the breach of such a duty caused the pursuer's loss

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders, as occupiers in control of the unoccupied flats above a jeweller's shop, owed a duty to take reasonable care to secure those premises against foreseeable use by thieves to access and steal from the shop below. The risk of such a theft was more than a mere possibility; it was very likely, especially after repeated warnings. The defenders breached this duty by failing to secure the property, and this breach was causally connected to the loss suffered by the pursuers. The absence of a special relationship between the defenders and the thief did not negate the duty of care. The sheriff erred in law in holding otherwise.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; interlocutor of the sheriff recalled; decree granted for pursuers against second defenders for agreed sum.

Orders

  • Recall the interlocutor of the sheriff dated 26 October 1983
  • Sustain the appeal