» Search this site

A tenant who sought to claim from her landlord, after she was cut by broken glass, found that the Court of Appeal did not agree that her landlord was liable for her injury.

Elaine Alker had been injured when the glass in her front door broke, causing a serious injury to her arm. The glass concerned was ordinary glass, not safety glass. She argued that the glass, which was undamaged up to that time, should have been replaced with safety glass, as the dangers of using un-reinforced glass in doors are well known and have been so for many years. She argued that her landlord’s failure to replace the glass was a breach of his duty under s.4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972.

In court, it was ruled that the landlord, Collingwood Housing Association, was in breach of its obligations. The Housing Association appealed.

The Court of Appeal did not agree with the finding of the lower court. The door panel itself was not in disrepair and thus needed no maintenance. Although there was a repairing covenant in the tenancy agreement, the landlord’s duty was to maintain or repair the premises, which is not the same as a duty to keep them safe. That would be an unjustified extension of the statutory language.

For advice on any commercial property matter, please contact Peter Bujakowski.

Print this page | Top