‘In Rogerson v Bolsover District Council (2019) EWCA Civ 226 the appellant was the tenant of a council house. She suffered injury as the result of an accident. The issue was whether the Council could be liable under Section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972. The relevant defect would have been discovered if the Council had implemented a system of regular inspection. Did the Council as landlord have a duty to inspect?’
Panopticon, 27th February 2019
‘The extent to which property owners of a defective building have a valid claim against professionals with involvement in the development is a subject that has recently seen an upsurge in interest and litigation. In the past months two TCC judgments have been published that consider the particular role and potential liabilities of approved inspectors (AIs): Zagora Management Ltd and others v Zurich Insurance plc and others and Lessees and Management Company of Herons Court v Heronslea Ltd and others.
To the disappointment of property owners, and perhaps the relief of insurers, these cases demonstrate the difficulties claimants face in succeeding against AIs.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 11th February 2019
‘You wait for 4 years for another case on bannisters and the Defective Premises Act 1972 and then two come along at once…
Sternbaum v Dhesi  EWCA Civ 155
Dodd v Raebarn Estates Ltd & Ors  EWHC 262 (QB)
Both can be dealt with fairly quickly and together, as the courts follow the same lines. Both cases involved falls on stairs, very sadly in Dodd, a fatal fall. In each case, there was no bannister to the staircase. Both claims were on appeal from being dismissed at first instance.’
Nearly Legal, 20th March 2016
‘Lafferty v Newark & Sherwood District Council  EWHC 320 (QB). Does section 4(4) of the Defective Premises Act 1972 create a strict liability on the landlord for any defect, such that it covers latent or undetectable defects? The short answer is no. This appeal sets out why.’
Nearly Legal, 6th March 2016
‘The case of Rendlesham Estates Plc v Barr Ltd  EWHC 3968 (TCC) is a bit off the housing law beaten track and as a result I have only recently got round to reading it properly. It concerned s.1, Defective Premises Act 1974, which is the statutory provision that enables any person with an interest in a dwelling to sue the person responsible for building the dwelling, or carrying out any work in connection with the dwelling, where the dwelling is not fit for human habitation when the work is completed.’
NearlyLegal, 15th January 2015
“A contractor who carried out works to a dwelling owed a duty under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 to see that the work was done in a workmanlike or professional manner. That duty was owed to the person for whom the works were carried out and the purchaser to whom that property was subsequently sold where the dwelling was new, or if refurbished or extended, it was wholly different from the old dwelling. The Act did not apply to improvements which did not sufficiently change the character of the property so as to amount to a new dwelling.”
WLR Daily, 13th April 2011
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“A finding that the premises were in imminent danger of collapse was not a necessary precursor to making a finding under the Defective Premises Act 1972 that a dwelling house was unfit for human habitation; and unfitness for habitation was to be construed as extending to defects of quality rendering the dwelling unsuitable for its purpose as well as to dangerous defects, regardless of whether such a defect was confined to one part of the dwelling or whether the effects of the defect were evident at the time when the dwelling was completed; and where there were a number of defects, it was necessary to consider the effect of the defects as a whole.”
WLR Daily, 17th March 2009
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.