Andrews v Schooling [1991] 3 All ER 723
Judgement for the case Andrews v Schooling
Table Of Contents
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.
For Further Study on Andrews v Schooling
A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an O...
Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedSimilar Cases
Related Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
| GDL Tort Law | Defective Premises Liability For Animals Notes (6 pages) |
Tort Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. ...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.