SQE1 occupiers' liability: what you must know and how it is tested

SQE1 occupiers' liability questions test which Act applies, whether the claimant was a visitor or not, and whether the occupier took reasonable care. Start by deciding who is claiming and for what damage. Read it with the wider Tort guide.

SubjectTort (FLK1)

Key lawOccupiers' Liability Acts 1957 and 1984

Question typeSingle best answer, five options

The rules to apply

An occupier is the person with control over the premises, and there can be more than one (Wheat v Lacon). Premises include land, buildings, vehicles and ladders. The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 protects lawful visitors. The occupier owes the common duty of care: to take reasonable care that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which they are invited (s2(2)). A visitor who goes beyond the permission becomes a trespasser for that part.

Section 2(3) says the occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults, and may expect skilled visitors to guard against the risks of their calling. A warning discharges the duty only if it is enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe (s2(4)(a)). The occupier is not liable for the faulty work of an independent contractor if it was reasonable to entrust the work, the occupier took reasonable care to choose a competent contractor and, where reasonable, checked the work (s2(4)(b)). Under UCTA 1977 a business occupier cannot exclude liability for death or personal injury caused by negligence.

The Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 covers people who are not visitors, such as trespassers. The occupier owes a duty if they know of the danger or have reasonable grounds to believe it exists, know or have reasonable grounds to believe that the other person may come into the vicinity, and the risk is one against which they may reasonably be expected to offer protection (s1(3)). The duty is to take reasonable care to see that the person does not suffer injury. It covers personal injury only, not damage to property (s1(8)). The duty can be discharged by a warning (s1(5)). The duty concerns dangers due to the state of the premises, not risks from the claimant's own activities (Tomlinson v Congleton BC).

Traps examiners use

Using the 1957 Act for a trespasser.
Claiming property damage under the 1984 Act.
Holding the occupier liable for a contractor's work without asking whether the occupier acted reasonably.
Treating any warning as enough. It must make the visitor reasonably safe.
Ignoring the activity versus state of premises distinction.

Worked question 1

Seaview Hotel hires Roofline Ltd, a reputable and insured firm, to repair its roof. The work is routine and the hotel checks it afterwards. Roofline's work is faulty and a tile falls and injures a guest. Which statement is correct?

A. The hotel is liable, because an occupier's duty cannot be delegated.
B. The hotel is not liable if it was reasonable to entrust the work, and it took reasonable care to choose a competent contractor and check the work.
C. The hotel is liable only if the guest was a trespasser.
D. The hotel is not liable in any circumstances because Roofline is responsible.
E. The hotel is liable under the 1984 Act.

Answer: B. Section 2(4)(b) of the 1957 Act excuses the occupier where the work was reasonably entrusted to a competent contractor and the occupier took reasonable care to check it. The guest is a visitor, so the 1957 Act applies, and not the 1984 Act. D goes too far, since the exception has conditions.

Worked question 2

A farmer knows a broken fence lets walkers into a field with an uncovered slurry pit. Luis, an adult, takes a short cut across the field without permission, falls into the pit and breaks his leg. His phone is also ruined. Which statement is correct?

A. Luis can claim for both under the 1957 Act.
B. Luis can claim for both under the 1984 Act.
C. Luis may claim for his leg under the 1984 Act if its conditions are met, but cannot claim for the phone.
D. Luis cannot claim for anything because he trespassed.
E. Luis can claim for the phone only.

Answer: C. Luis is a trespasser, so the 1984 Act applies. The farmer knew of the danger and had reason to expect people nearby, so the duty may well apply for personal injury. Section 1(8) excludes property damage. A and B misidentify the Act or the damage, and D ignores the 1984 Act.

Checklist before you move on

Who is the occupier?
Visitor (1957) or non-visitor (1984)?
Which damage: injury only, or property too?
Reasonable care: warning, contractor, child, skilled visitor?
Defences: contributory negligence, consent, exclusion limits.
Danger from premises or from the activity?

Test yourself on more original questions in our SQE1 practice questions.

Try a free SQE1 question

Questions

What is the difference between the 1957 and 1984 Acts?

The 1957 Act covers lawful visitors and the 1984 Act covers other entrants such as trespassers, with narrower conditions and personal injury only.

Can an occupier exclude liability to visitors?

Not for death or personal injury caused by negligence if they occupy in the course of a business (UCTA 1977), but may for other loss if reasonable.

Is an occupier liable for a contractor's faulty work?

Not if it was reasonable to hire the contractor, the occupier took reasonable care to choose a competent one and, where reasonable, checked the work.

Sources: SRA: SQE1 Assessment Specification (from 1 September 2026); Occupiers' Liability Act 1957; Occupiers' Liability Act 1984. Checked 10 November 2026.