Legal Case Summary
Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987] UKHL 18; [1987] AC 241; [1987] 2 WLR 480; [1987] 1 All ER 710
NEGLIGENCE, DUTY OF CARE, VANDALISM, FIRE STARTED BY VANDALS, OCCUPIERS OF THE ADJOINING PREMISES, LIABILITY OF OCCUPIERS
Facts
The defendant purchased a disused cinema with the intention of turning it into a supermarket. Five weeks after the defendant entered the building for the first time, it was set on fire by intruders and destroyed. As a result, the adjacent buildings were also affected and damaged. The cinema building was a target to vandals and children who often played there, but the defendants had had no knowledge of previous attempts to start fire at the cinema buildings. The owners of the adjacent buildings brought an action for negligence against the defendants on grounds that they failed to take reasonable care for the safety of the buildings by not keeping the cinema lockfast, making regular inspections and employing a caretaker. The Court of Session (Outer House) ruled in favour of the plaintiffs. The Court of Session (Inner House) reversed the decision of the Outer House and the plaintiffs appealed to the House of Lords.
Issues
Does the occupier of a property owe a duty of care to the adjoining occupiers in respect of acts of trespass on his property resulting in damage to the adjoining properties?
Decision / Outcome
The appeals were dismissed
(1) Whether an occupier of a property owe a duty of care to the adjoining occupiers in respect of acts of trespass on his property resulting in damage to the adjoining properties depends on the circumstances of the case and socially accepted standards of behaviour.
(2) Cases where a duty of care exists are likely to be rare.
(3) The defendants were not aware of previous attempts of vandals to start fire and as such, the building did not present an obvious fire risk, so the defendants were not under any duty to anticipate the possibility of fire and take measures to prevent the entry of vandals.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987] AC 241. The House of Lords’ ruling remains good law and continues to be applied in negligence cases concerning liability for the acts of third parties, particularly in the context of omissions and the duty of occupiers to prevent damage caused by trespassers or vandals.
The general principle that an occupier will not ordinarily owe a duty of care to neighbours in respect of damage caused by third-party acts on their land — unless they had knowledge of a specific danger — has been affirmed and developed in subsequent cases, notably Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003] UKHL 47 and Mitchell v Glasgow City Council [2009] UKHL 11. The article does not address these later developments, but they do not contradict the core principles set out here. Students should be aware that the broader framework for establishing a duty of care in respect of third-party acts has been further refined in case law following Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605, which is the leading modern authority on duty of care and should be read alongside this case. Overall, the summary remains accurate for its stated purpose.
