Wheat v Lacon & Co Ltd [1966] AC 552 (HL)

Facts

• The case involved the owners of a public house (the brewers, "Ds") and a licensee ("R") who managed the premises under a service contract.
• The claimant ("C") and her husband stayed as lodgers in a private part of the pub not accessible to the public.
• The claimant’s husband suffered a fatal fall on an unlit staircase.
• The brewery retained control over the building’s structure and held responsibility for repairs, while the licensee managed daily operations under a license rather than a lease.
• The claim was brought for damages, treating both brewery and licensee as responsible under occupiers' liability for injuries to lawful visitors.

Issues

1. What is the legal definition of an "occupier" for the purposes of occupiers' liability?
2. Can more than one party be deemed an occupier simultaneously, and how is liability apportioned?
3. Does the distinction between a lease and a licence affect whether an owner retains liability for injuries?
4. Was there a breach of duty of care owed to the claimant as a result of the dangerous condition of the premises?

Decision

• The House of Lords held that an "occupier" is any person who exercises a sufficient degree of control over the premises, not limited to ownership or exclusive possession.
• Both the brewery and the licensee were joint occupiers, with respective liability proportional to their degree of control.
• The brewery retained significant control due to structural responsibility and absence of lease, distinguishing the situation from a landlord-tenant relationship.
• Despite joint occupancy, there was no breach of duty; the staircase, while unlit, was not inherently dangerous for those exercising appropriate care.
• The appeal was dismissed as the duty of care had not been breached.

Legal Principles

• The term “occupier” encompasses anyone with sufficient control to enable or prevent harm from risks on the premises.
• Occupancy and consequent duty of care can rest on multiple parties, each liable only to the extent of their actual control.
• The differentiation between landlord (who has let by demise) and licensor (who retains control) is critical for ascertaining ongoing responsibility.
• Liability in occupiers’ cases is not determined solely by title to property but by practical ability to manage risk.

Conclusion

Wheat v Lacon & Co Ltd [1966] AC 552 clarified that liability under occupiers’ liability arises from actual control over premises rather than legal ownership, supporting joint liability in cases of shared control. The case set enduring principles distinguishing landlords from licensors and continues to shape the determination of responsibility for risks on premises.