Legal Case Brief
Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd [1966] AC 552
Tort law – Negligence – Duty to act
Facts
The defendants, in this case, were brewers who owned a public house, which they entrusted to a licensee to manage. This individual was employed by the defendants under a service agreement to this effect. This required the licensee to sell drinks in the ground floor of the premises, as this was the licenced area. The plaintiff was staying in the ‘private’ section of the premises with her husband, and they were staying as paying guests. One night during their stay, the plaintiff fell down a dimly-lit staircase, fractured his skull and died as a result of his injuries.
Issues
The trial judge held that the defendants were not liable as they could not have foreseen that the deceased would have used the staircase in the ‘private’ section. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal who found that the defendants were not in occupation of the staircase. The question for this court was whether, under the circumstances, the defendants were occupants of the public house at the time of the incident and whether they owed the deceased a duty of care under the circumstances.
Decision/Outcome
The court held that the defendants retained occupation and control of the inn and that the plaintiff and her husband had been visitors to the public house and were therefore owed a duty of care by the defendants. However, Denning M.R. held that despite the fact the staircase was unlit; it was not dangerous to those using it whilst taking the appropriate care. As a result of this, the appeal was dismissed.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case brief accurately summarises the decision in Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd [1966] AC 552. The case remains good law and continues to be the leading authority on the definition of “occupier” and the concept of multiple occupiers under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. The core principle — that more than one party may simultaneously hold the requisite degree of control over premises to qualify as an occupier — has been consistently applied in subsequent case law.
Readers should note one factual ambiguity in this brief: the article refers interchangeably to “the plaintiff” as both female (“the plaintiff fell”) and male (“fractured his skull”). In the reported case it was Mr Wheat who died following the fall; Mrs Wheat brought the action as his widow. This inconsistency does not affect the legal principles described but may cause confusion.
The 1957 Act remains in force as originally enacted in its material provisions. The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984, which extended (in more limited terms) a duty of care to trespassers, is also relevant background for students studying this area but does not alter the principles established in this case, which concerned lawful visitors under the 1957 Act.
