Adele Shtern (Appellant) v Monica Cummings (Respondent)

Adele Shtern (Appellant) v Monica Cummings (Respondent)

The respondent was not an occupier for purposes of the Act, as she lacked operational control over the hotel; mere ownership of land or the refrigerator did not impose a duty of care to the appellant.

Citation
[2014] UKPC 18
Parties
Appellant: Adele Shtern; Respondent: Monica Cummings
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
10 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Occupiers' Liability, Negligence, Duty of Care
Tort Law Occupiers' Liability Negligence Duty of Care

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adele Shtern

Appellant

Monica Cummings

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent owed a duty of care to the appellant as an occupier under the Occupiers' Liability Act
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings precluded the respondent from denying occupier status
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's ownership of the land or refrigerator imposed liability

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent was not an occupier for purposes of the Act, as she lacked operational control over the hotel; mere ownership of land or the refrigerator did not impose a duty of care to the appellant.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; respondent owed no relevant duty of care to appellant.