xs
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Andrews v Schooling [1991] 3 All ER 723

Country:
United Kingdom
  • Defendant had renovated a house which suffered leaks due to inadequate work having been done in the basement which Plaintiff (tenant) argued was a breach of the 1972 Act.

  • CA allowed her claim, stating that the duty to make a dwelling fit for habitation applied to nonfeasance (omitting to do the proper work) as well as malfeasance (doing the work but negligently).

  • A dwelling was unfit for habitation where an essential attribute of it was missing

Balcombe LJ

  • There is no logic in saying that acts of omission that render a dwelling unfit for habitation are not to be included in the act, but that positive acts are. 

Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch