Torts Occupiers Liability

The issue is whether the defendant Sykt Jebat can be held liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs, Sam, Jojo and Lan under the law of Occupiers’ Liability. Occupiers’ liability concerns injury caused to a plaintiff as a result of defective condition of the land, building and premises. In order to establish occupiers’ liability, the occupier must have a sufficient degree of control over the premise. Lord Denning in Wheat v Lacon & Co Ltd (1966) held that “whenever a person has a sufficient degree of control over a premises, he ought to realise any failure in his part may cause harm to a person coming lawfully there”. In order to be an occupier, it is not necessary for a person to have entire control over the premises. It suffice that he has some degree of control. Control is shown when a person has a right to allow people to come in or to stop people from come into the premises. In the landmark case of Wheat v Lacon & Co Ltd, occupier was defined as someone who has immediate supervision and the power of permitting or prohibiting the entry of other persons and also the person who has any degree of control over the state of premises. It is not necessary for a person to have exclusive control over his premise. By applying the test of control, it can be seen that Sykt Jebat as an owner, has a right to control people to come in or to stop people from come into his premises which is the football ground. Therefore, he is an occupier. As an occupier, Sykt Jebat has a duty to take care of his entrants. However the duty of care required of the occupier differs according to the types of entrants. Sam, a member of a visiting team that played in a match with Sykt Jebat’s team could be considered as a business invitee since he enters the premises of occupier with occupier’s consent in the pursuit of common interest with the occupier (which is the football match) for materialistic reason and brings economic advantages to the occupier. The standard of care