IN THE UK SUPREME COURT

ON APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS (DAMAGES)

BETWEEN:

HAROLD JONES Appellants

And

GEORG DAVIES Respondents

SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

Introduction
1. This is an appeal to the supreme court brought by Mr Harold jones against the decision of
justice moody and the court of appeal. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that Mr
Davis (the respondent) should not receive damages under the occupier's liability act 1957.
Background:
2. Mr Jones and Mr Davies are two men who share adjoining farms' hatchet end'. Mr Jones had
been the first to obtain his farm with Mr Davies purchase following bank difficulties. There
is a manhole located on Mr jones's property that provides access to a jointly owned
controlled drainage system that links to a septic tank on Mr Davies's land. For this reason, the
owners of both properties have equal rights of access to the drainage system in case needed
because it services both properties. Both Mr Davis and jones had regularly employed
contractors to carry out maintenance on the system. One morning at around 3am, Mr Harold
was awoken by noises in his yard. Upon looking out his window, he was Mr Davies throwing
small parcels into the manhole cover in the yard. Mr Davies then decided to descend into the
drain but, while doing so, slipped and regrettably sustained injuries.
Legal submissions
1. My first submission is that Mr Davies should not be considered a 'visitor' but instead be a
occupier by lord denning's submission in the case Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltdi. An occupier
does not need to have complete control of the premises and is a person who has a sufficient
degree of control over the premises.

2. My second submission is whether or not if found to be a visitor Mr Davies was owed a duty
of care. The occupier's liability act 1957 "to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in
using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be
there". Mr Davies will not disclose any evidence in this case, and therefore it is unclear if he
was using the manhole for the permitted and intended purposes.

3. My third submission touches on an occupier's duty of care, especially regarding

foreseeability. The occupier's liability act 1957 talks about reasonably foreseeable harm to a
visitor. I would argue that one would not reasonably be able to foresee that Mr Davies would
have intended to visit the manhole that late at night and throw parcels down it. When
observing the circumstances, it may have been intentionally done so since Mr Davies refuses
to disclose the contents of the parcels. Intentional or unintentional, it would not have been
reasonability foreseeable in terms of an average person's usage.

Conclusion

1. On the basis of these three submissions, my client Mr Jones appeal should be allowed as Mr
Davies should be considered an occupier rather than a visitor and not be liable for these
damages. His honour justice moody was erred in stating that Mr Davis was considered a
visitor and therefore granting him compensation.

Shahana Fazal
Council for the Appellant
April 2022
i