Revill v Newbery [1996] 2 WLR 239

Facts

• Mr. Newbery (N) lived on an allotment and frequently slept in a shed to protect his belongings.
• Mr. Revill (R) and Mr. Grainger (G) trespassed onto N's allotment with the intention of breaking into the shed.
• On hearing the attempted break-in, N fired a 12-bore shotgun through a hole in the shed, claiming his intent was to scare rather than injure.
• The shot injured R, who then brought a personal injury claim against N for negligence and breach of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984.
• N argued that R’s illegal conduct barred his claim under the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio and also alleged contributory negligence.

Issues

1. Whether an occupier can rely on a claimant's illegal conduct (trespass or attempted burglary) as a complete defense to negligence under the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio.
2. Whether the duty of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 was breached by N in shooting at trespassers without proper identification of their position.
3. Whether and to what extent R’s illegal conduct should be considered as contributory negligence in the assessment of damages.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal held that the occupier’s duty of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 applies even to trespassers.
• The ex turpi causa doctrine does not provide a complete bar to a claim arising from an occupier's negligent actions, even if the claimant was engaged in an illegal act.
• N was found to have breached his duty by firing the shotgun in these circumstances.
• R’s damages were reduced to reflect contributory negligence, recognizing that his own unlawful conduct contributed to his injury.
• N’s appeal was dismissed and the trial judge’s decision to award reduced damages was upheld.

Legal Principles

• The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 imposes a duty of care on occupiers towards non-visitors, including trespassers, in certain circumstances.
• The ex turpi causa doctrine generally precludes a claim based on the claimant's illegal act, but does not automatically bar claims where the defendant's negligence is also a factor.
• Contributory negligence operates to reduce, rather than extinguish, a claimant’s recovery when their unlawful actions contribute to their injury.
• The law requires an assessment of reasonableness in the occupier’s actions, regardless of the claimant’s legal status on the property.

Conclusion

Revill v Newbery establishes that, under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984, occupiers must take reasonable care even with respect to trespassers, and that unlawful conduct by a claimant may reduce but does not entirely eliminate liability through ex turpi causa; rather, it is addressed through contributory negligence.