Landlord’s repairing covenant – Section 4 of Defective Premises Act 1972 – Respondent injured by putting hand through glass panel in door – Glass not in disrepair but of unsafe type – Whether landlord liable under section 4 – Whether section 4 duty extending to unsafe items even though no disrepair – Appeal allowed
The respondent occupied premises under a tenancy granted by the appellant landlord. A landlord’s repairing covenant in the lease required the appellant to repair and maintain the structure and exterior of the building in “good condition”, while the respondent was required to permit access to the property for the purpose of carrying out repairs and improvements.
The respondent was injured when she accidentally put her hand through a glass panel in her front door. The panel was made of ordinary annealed glass, not safety glass. Although the hazards of using annealed glass in doors had been known for sometime, the panel had not been in need of repair or maintenance prior to the accident, and the building had been constructed in compliance with the building regulations in force at the time.
The respondent brought proceedings against the appellant for damages for breach of the statutory duty under section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972. That duty applied to any landlord that owed an obligation to the tenant for the maintenance or repair of the premises. It required the landlord to take reasonable care to ensure that all persons who might reasonably be expected to be affected by defects in the state of the premises were reasonably safe from personal injury or from damage to their property caused by a relevant defect. The respondent’s claim was allowed on the ground that the annealed glass was a “relevant defect” within the meaning of section 4.
On appeal, the issue was whether a landlord’s duty under section 4 was confined to items that were in disrepair or extended to things that might expose people to a risk of injury even though they were not in disrepair or in need of maintenance.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
A duty to maintain or repair did not equate with a duty to keep safe, and a duty to repair and maintain in good condition did not encompass a duty to put in safe condition. The section 4 duty extended no further than the covenant to repair and maintain owed by the landlord in any particular case; section 4 was a statutory enforcement of the landlord’s repairing covenants, not a statutory warranty that the premises were reasonably safe. Accordingly, the annealed glass was not a relevant defect within section 4 and the defendant was not in breach of its duty. The decision to the contrary in the lower court involved an unjustified extension of the statutory language: McAuley v Bristol City Council [1991] 2 EGLR 64; [1991] 46 EG 155 and Quick v Taff-Ely Borough Council [1985] 2 EGLR 50; (1985) 276 EG 452 considered
Ashley Underwood QC and Michael Lemmy (instructed by Keoghs, of Bolton) appeared for the appellant; Richard Hartley and Rebecca Pearson (instructed by Linder Myers, of Manchester) appeared for the respondent.
Sally Dobson, barrister
