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. 

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Tort Law study materials?

Our law notes have been a popular underground sensation for 10 years:

  • Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates
  • Includes copious adademic commentary in summary form
  • Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole
  • Covers all major cases for LLB exams
  • Satisfaction guaranteed refund policy
  • Recently updated
Tort Law Notes

Tort Law Notes >>