The extent of an occupier\u2019s liability towards a non-visitor, and the degree of knowledge which the defendant is required to have over the presence of a non-visitor in the vicinity of the danger as set out in s1(3)(b) Occupiers Liability Act 1984.<\/p>\n
The defendant\u2019s owned a defunct factory, around which they had erected a seven foot-fence topped with barbed wire.\u00a0 There was however a small section of the fence at which the barbed wire was missing.\u00a0 The claimant, a nine-year old boy, managed to locate this spot, and using an adjoining wall as a foothold, managed to scale the fence and to enter the defendant\u2019s premises.\u00a0 After he had gained access to the factory premises, he climbed a ladder onto the factory roof itself.\u00a0 He then fell through a skylight on the roof of the factory, and sustained serious injuries as a result.\u00a0 The claimant asserted that he was owed a duty of care by the defendants under s1(3)(b) of the Occupiers Liability Act 1984, which imposes a duty of care when the defendant;<\/p>\n
\n\u201cknows, or has reasonable grounds to believe that the other is in the vicinity of the danger concerned or that he may come into vicinity of the danger in any case\u201d.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
According to the claimant, this imposed liability where the defendant knew, or ought to know, that the claimant was likely to be in the vicinity of the danger.\u00a0 This was rejected at first instance by the High Court, who held that s1(3)(b) imposed a duty only where the defendant knew of the other\u2019s presence, or was actually aware of facts which would have provided grounds for a reasonable belief that the other was in the vicinity of the danger.\u00a0 The claimant appealed against this decision.<\/p>\n
Issues<\/h3>\n
Where the defendant does not actually know that there is another non-visitor in the vicinity of a danger of which they are aware, it is necessary for them to have actual knowledge of certain facts or circumstances which would create grounds on which a belief that there was another person in the vicinity of the danger? Failing this, can a defendant be liable where they ought to have known that there were circumstances which gave rise to this belief?<\/p>\n
Decision \/ Outcome<\/h3>\n
The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.\u00a0 It was held that s1(3)(b) of the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 required a defendant to have actual knowledge either of the claimant\u2019s presence in the vicinity of the danger, or of facts which would create a reasonable belief that there was another likely to be present, in order for a duty of care to be owed by the defendant towards the claimant.\u00a0 The Court of Appeal considered the argument that the defendant should be considered to have constructive, or imputed knowledge of facts that would give rise to these circumstances.\u00a0 Certain arguments could be put forwards to support this argument, as the textual wording of s1(3)(b) states only that the defendant \u201chas reasonable grounds\u201d to believe that there was another present.\u00a0 As such, requiring actual knowledge of these grounds to be had might be argued to encourage defendants not to inquire too diligently into circumstances which might give rise to this belief, or to otherwise \u201cshut\u201d their eyes to such facts in order to ensure that they did not have a duty of care imposed on them in respect of these non-visitors.\u00a0 This was something put forwards by counsel for the claimant before the Court of Appeal,<\/p>\n
This argument was ultimately rejected by the Court of Appeal, who agreed with the decision of Ognall J in the High Court, that Parliament did not intend s1(3)(b) Occupiers Liability Act 1984 to impose a duty of care on defendants in circumstances where they either knew or ought to know that there was another present.\u00a0 If Parliament had intended this, it was held that they would have included the words \u201cwhere a defendant knows, or ought to know\u201d of another\u2019s presence.\u00a0 Seen in this way, Swain v Natui Ram Puri <\/em>can be seen as an exercise in the application of both the literal rule of statutory interpretation, and of the purposive method of statutory interpretation.\u00a0<\/p>\nGiven the fact that the factory was defunct, and that there was no evidence that there had been any children in the area that had been seen or witnessed by the defendants, no duty of care could exist in the circumstances even if it was accepted that this evidence of children being near the factory ought to have been known about by the defendants.\u00a0 It was held, that the defendants, by having erected a high fence (and for this fence to be topped with barbed wire) had inspected this fence and found no signs of trespass, meaning that they did not in fact either \u201cshut their eyes\u201d to the circumstances, and that they did not have actual knowledge of facts which would give rise to a reasonable belief in the presence of another.<\/p>\n
In any event, according to the judgment given by MacCowan LJ, the duty, if it did exist, was discharged satisfactorily by the defendants by the erection of a seven foot high fence around the premises, which might have been regarded as the taking of reasonable steps to protect against the danger of individuals falling through the roof of the factory, considering the fact that it must be thought to have been unlikely for a child to have managed to scale this fence, and considering the fact that it must be considered unlikely for anyone at all to have sought to have climbed onto the roof of the factory in any event.<\/p>\n
In conclusion, the decision in Swain <\/em>has determined that the requirement that the defendant have \u201creasonable grounds\u201d to believe that there was another in the vicinity of a danger known about by them requires that the defendant actually did have these grounds.\u00a0 This means that the defendant will not be liable where these grounds might have existed, but they were not aware of the factors which would have given rise to this reasonable belief.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The defendant\u2019s owned a defunct factory, around which they had erected a seven foot-fence topped with barbed wire.\u00a0 There was however a small section of the fence at which the barbed wire was missing.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[85],"class_list":["post-386","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cases","tag-uk-law"],"yoast_head":"\n
Swain v Natui Ram Puri | LawTeacher.net<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The defendant\u2019s owned a defunct factory, around which they had erected a seven foot-fence topped with barbed wire.\u00a0 There was however a small section of the fence at which the barbed wire was missing.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/swain-v-natui-ram-puri.php\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Swain v Natui Ram Puri\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The defendant\u2019s owned a defunct factory, around which they had erected a seven foot-fence topped with barbed wire.\u00a0 There was however a small section of the fence at which the barbed wire was missing.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/swain-v-natui-ram-puri.php\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"LawTeacher.net\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-large-logo.webp\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1920\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1080\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/webp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"LawTeacher\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"LawTeacher\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"ScholarlyArticle\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/swain-v-natui-ram-puri.php#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/swain-v-natui-ram-puri.php\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"LawTeacher\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e\"},\"headline\":\"Swain v Natui Ram Puri\",\"datePublished\":\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/swain-v-natui-ram-puri.php\"},\"wordCount\":1038,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"UK Law\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Summaries\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/swain-v-natui-ram-puri.php\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/swain-v-natui-ram-puri.php\",\"name\":\"Swain v Natui Ram Puri | LawTeacher.net\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\",\"description\":\"The defendant\u2019s owned a defunct factory, around which they had erected a seven foot-fence topped with barbed wire.\u00a0 There was however a small section of the fence at which the barbed wire was missing.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/swain-v-natui-ram-puri.php#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/swain-v-natui-ram-puri.php\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/swain-v-natui-ram-puri.php#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Swain v Natui Ram Puri\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\",\"name\":\"Law Teacher\",\"description\":\"The Law Essay Professionals\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"LawTeacher.net\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Law Teacher\",\"alternateName\":\"LawTeacher.net\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg\",\"width\":250,\"height\":250,\"caption\":\"Law Teacher\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/api.whatsapp.com\/send\/?phone=447723491966&text&type=phone_number&app_absent=0\"],\"description\":\"Law Teacher provides academic writing services for law students throughout the world.\",\"email\":\"contact@lawteacher.net\",\"telephone\":\"+44 115 966 7966\",\"numberOfEmployees\":{\"@type\":\"QuantitativeValue\",\"minValue\":\"51\",\"maxValue\":\"200\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e\",\"name\":\"LawTeacher\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"LawTeacher\"},\"description\":\"LawTeacher.net is the UK's leading provider of academic legal support, offering both writing services and an extensive collection of law study resources for students in the UK and overseas. Founded in 2003 by Grey's Inn graduate Barclay Littlewood, the Company was built on a commitment to excellence, with unique guarantees and a high standard of service from day one. The team includes over 500 UK legally qualified writing experts, with many practising solicitors and barristers, and several former lecturers.\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/gravatar.com\/lawteacherprofile\"],\"knowsAbout\":[\"Contract Law\",\"Criminal Law\",\"Constitutional and Administrative Law\",\"EU Law\",\"Tort Law\",\"Property Law\",\"Equity and Trusts\",\"Jurisprudence\",\"Company Law\",\"Commercial Law\",\"Family Law\",\"Human Rights Law\",\"Employment Law\",\"Evidence\",\"Public International Law\",\"Legal Research and Methods\",\"Dispute Resolution\",\"Business Law and Practice\",\"Civil Litigation\",\"Criminal Litigation\",\"Professional Conduct\",\"Taxation\",\"Wills and Administration of Estates\",\"Solicitors\u2019 Accounts\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/author\/lawteacher\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Swain v Natui Ram Puri | LawTeacher.net","description":"The defendant\u2019s owned a defunct factory, around which they had erected a seven foot-fence topped with barbed wire.\u00a0 There was however a small section of the fence at which the barbed wire was missing.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/swain-v-natui-ram-puri.php","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Swain v Natui Ram Puri","og_description":"The defendant\u2019s owned a defunct factory, around which they had erected a seven foot-fence topped with barbed wire.\u00a0 There was however a small section of the fence at which the barbed wire was missing.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/swain-v-natui-ram-puri.php","og_site_name":"LawTeacher.net","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet","article_published_time":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1920,"height":1080,"url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-large-logo.webp","type":"image\/webp"}],"author":"LawTeacher","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@LawTeacherNet","twitter_site":"@LawTeacherNet","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"LawTeacher","Estimated reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"ScholarlyArticle","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/swain-v-natui-ram-puri.php#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/swain-v-natui-ram-puri.php"},"author":{"name":"LawTeacher","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e"},"headline":"Swain v Natui Ram Puri","datePublished":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/swain-v-natui-ram-puri.php"},"wordCount":1038,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization"},"keywords":["UK Law"],"articleSection":["Case Summaries"],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/swain-v-natui-ram-puri.php","url":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/swain-v-natui-ram-puri.php","name":"Swain v Natui Ram Puri | LawTeacher.net","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website"},"datePublished":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","description":"The defendant\u2019s owned a defunct factory, around which they had erected a seven foot-fence topped with barbed wire.\u00a0 There was however a small section of the fence at which the barbed wire was missing.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/swain-v-natui-ram-puri.php#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/swain-v-natui-ram-puri.php"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/swain-v-natui-ram-puri.php#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Swain v Natui Ram Puri"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website","url":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/","name":"Law Teacher","description":"The Law Essay Professionals","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization"},"alternateName":"LawTeacher.net","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization","name":"Law Teacher","alternateName":"LawTeacher.net","url":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg","width":250,"height":250,"caption":"Law Teacher"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/","https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/api.whatsapp.com\/send\/?phone=447723491966&text&type=phone_number&app_absent=0"],"description":"Law Teacher provides academic writing services for law students throughout the world.","email":"contact@lawteacher.net","telephone":"+44 115 966 7966","numberOfEmployees":{"@type":"QuantitativeValue","minValue":"51","maxValue":"200"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e","name":"LawTeacher","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"LawTeacher"},"description":"LawTeacher.net is the UK's leading provider of academic legal support, offering both writing services and an extensive collection of law study resources for students in the UK and overseas. Founded in 2003 by Grey's Inn graduate Barclay Littlewood, the Company was built on a commitment to excellence, with unique guarantees and a high standard of service from day one. The team includes over 500 UK legally qualified writing experts, with many practising solicitors and barristers, and several former lecturers.","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/gravatar.com\/lawteacherprofile"],"knowsAbout":["Contract Law","Criminal Law","Constitutional and Administrative Law","EU Law","Tort Law","Property Law","Equity and Trusts","Jurisprudence","Company Law","Commercial Law","Family Law","Human Rights Law","Employment Law","Evidence","Public International Law","Legal Research and Methods","Dispute Resolution","Business Law and Practice","Civil Litigation","Criminal Litigation","Professional Conduct","Taxation","Wills and Administration of Estates","Solicitors\u2019 Accounts"],"url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/author\/lawteacher"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/386","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=386"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/386\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=386"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=386"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=386"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}