Category

Contractual
entrants
Def: a
person who
is on the
premises
pursuant to
a
contractual
rights

Types
1. Main
purpose
entrant

2. Ancillar
y
purpose
entrant

Definition
Person who enters
the premises for
the purpose of
occupying it, and
who has paid to be
on the premises
e.g tenant or a
guest in the hotel

Person who has

paid to be on the
premises for the
primary purpose of
some activity other
than as a personal
dwelling e.g
spectator at a
sports event,
passenger on a
bus, patient at the
private hosp.

Standard of care by
occupier
Ensure premises is safe
and adequate for the
purposes for which it is
contracted out, and the
occupier must employ
and exercise reasonable
steps and expertise in
the performance of duty.
This principle is limited
as def cannot be held
liable for defects to the
construction,alteration,
repair or maintenance
that cannot be
reasonably recovered.
Ensure premises are
safe for that particular
purpose.

Case
Maclenan v Segar
Fact: Fire broke and P
injured while escaped.
Held: D liable for failing
to ensure premises
was safe, as no
emergency way out.

Gillmore v London
County Council (floor
slippery)
Held: D liable for
failure to ensure the
floor is suitable for phy
exercise.

Spectators safety:
Occupier must use

Murray v Haaingay
Arena

reasonable care against

those dangers that may
reasonable assumed to
be possible and
expected according to
nature of the sport.

Invitees
Def: a
person who
enters
premises
with
permission
or on the
authority of
the
occupier.
Purpose of
entry is a
common
interest bet
occupier
and the
invitee.

Legally
authorised
entrants

Person who enter

on the authority of
the law e.g
policemen,
firemen.

Business
visitors

person who enter

premises, be it
public or private,
for a materialistic

Held: court denied Ps

claim when he was
struck by a hockey
puck while watching
hockey game.

Shamsuddin v Yap
Choh Teh
Held: Def contractor
was liable. Policeman
was an invitee and
duty of care was
owned to him.

Any danger which is

known to him (or ought
to be known by him) and
which the invitee is

Indemaur v Dames
( Ps gas-fitter fell thru
a hole, and injured
himself)

reason and who

actually bring
economic
advantages to the
occupier e.g
customer in a
supermarket.

ignorant of, is averted,

whether by notice,
lightning, guarding or
otherwise.
In other words, duty is
to prevent damage
arising from unusual
danger or unusual risk.
There is no absolute
duty to prevent danger,
but a duty to make the
place least dangerous as
such a place could
reasonably be.

Held: this was an

unusual danger which
was in fact known to
the D. Even though P
as an invitee must take
reasonable steps for
his own safety, an
occupier must
reasonably avoid any
damage that could
arise from an
extraordinary danger
that is known to him or
ought to be known by
him.
Takong Tabari v GOS

Licensee
Def: person
who enter
premises

Public invitees
e.g person go
to a public
toilet or public
swimming
pool. Overlap
with
licensees.
Entrant as of
right

If entrance into a
public buiding
requires the
entrant to pay a
fee, then he is an
invitee.

Right to enter into

premises that are
open to public e.g
public park, public

Actual knowledge of the

occupier as to the
existence of danger is
not necessary and the

Aiken v Kingborough
Corporation- suggested
that entrants as of
right cannot be

with
occupiers
permission,
express or
implied.
Occupier
has no
interest
with the
licensee on
his
premises.

lavatory, public
library, public
swimming pool.

Social visitors

Entrant by
implied
permission

Enters the private

premises with the
permission of the
def occupier or by
invitation. Purpose
is social in nature
and does not
confer any
materialistic or
economic
advantage to the
occupier e.g a
guest.
Court implies a
licence. He enters
without any
express restriction
by the occupier.

licensee visitor cannot

assume that premises
will be free from visible
dangers. However, the
occupier must take
reasonable steps in the
circumstances to avoid
any damage from
occurring, esp if danger
is obvious.

categorised as either
an invitee or a
licensee. He does not
seek the gratitious use
of anothers property,
and so he is entitled to
expect that the
premise is reasonably
safe, not only for
himself but for the
public at large.
Yeap Cheng Hock v
Kajima-Taisei Joint
Venture (geologist)
Held: Def liable as the
cause of injury was a
concealed danger and
was known or ought to
be known by the Def.
Datuk Bandaraya v
Ong Kok Peng

The occupiers duty:

Robert-Addie & Sons v
Dumbreck- stated that a
duty of care arise when
2 factors are

a. Occupiers
knowledgeliable if he had
actual

Court applies the

doctrine of
allurement, e.g a
child enter a land
due to some
attraction on the
land or someone
who is not
prevented to use
the occupiers land
in order to get to
the other side of
the land.

established:

knowledge as to
the existence of
danger and
ought to have
known the
existence.
Case: Hawkins v
Couldson v
Purley
Held: D held
liable as he
knew one of the
steps of the
ladder was
broken although
he did not
realize- the
extent of
danger.
b. Concealed
danger
Case: Latham v
R Johnson-stated
that concealed
danger consists
of sth hidden or
concealed and
the element of

surprise. The
premises look
safe but it is in
fact a trap.
Sufficient if
danger is sth
licensee is not
aware and could
not be expected
to be aware of.

Children
licensee

Higher as a child cannot

be expected to be aware
of the dangers that may
be obvious to adult.
Case ; Ramsay v Appel

Yeap Cheng
Hock.
If licensee has
been warned, it
ceases to be
concealed and
he is expected
to take
reasonable care
of himself.
Phillips v Rochester
Corporation- enter to
pluck some fruits.
Danger visible to adult
but not to children.

Element of attraction
was balanced with

Held: no breach of duty

as def had a right to
assume that prudent

element of the degree of

reasonable care
exercised over the
children in an objective
manner.
It falls on the shoulder of
the occupier that he has
taken all reasonable
precautions in the
circumstances.

parents would not

allow their children to
venture into open
spaces without any
control or ensuring the
place was safe.
Kalaichelvi v Kinrara
Group Estates-blade
from grass-cutting
machine
Held: the licensor
occupier must act with
the reasonable
diligence to prevent his
premises from
misleading or
entrapping licensee.
due to the girl's age,
she could not have
known the danger.
Consequently the
machine should not
have been operated so
close to children
without any
precautions to prevent
foreseeable injury.

Trespasser

Enters
premise
without any
express or
implied
permission
from the
occupier.

Legally authorised
person may
become trespasser
if goes into
restricted area.
Case: Willcox v
Kettel
Where he stays on
the premise
beyond the time
allowed.
Case: Hourigan
Improper use of
premise
Case: GOM v Kong
EE Kim

An occupier does not

owe a duty to a
trespasser as he has
entered without
permission and is
therefore assumed to
have accepted all risks
and any danger there
might be on the
property.
Case: Robbert-Addie v
Dumbreck
Overrruled by
Case: BRB v Herrington