Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Andrews v Schooling

[1991] 3 All ER 723

Case summary last updated at 18/01/2020 16:12 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Andrews v Schooling

D had renovated a house which suffered leaks due to inadequate work having been done in the basement which P (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. 

Andrews v Schooling crops up in following areas of law