The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984
When accidents occur on land where someone did not have permission to be — such as abandoned buildings, construction sites or private land — liability is not automatically excluded.
The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 governs the duty owed by occupiers of premises to non-visitors, including trespassers.
Although the duty under the 1984 Act is more limited than the duty owed to lawful visitors under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, it does not mean occupiers owe no responsibility at all.
In certain circumstances, an occupier can still be legally liable if a trespasser or other non-visitor suffers injury due to a dangerous condition on the land.
The Act strikes a balance between:
- Protecting landowners from unfair liability, and
- Preventing occupiers from ignoring serious, foreseeable dangers.
Understanding when the 1984 Act applies is essential if an injury occurred in circumstances involving trespass or unauthorised entry.
What Is the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984?
The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 sets out when a duty of care may arise towards individuals who are not lawful visitors.
Unlike the 1957 Act, which imposes a general “common duty of care” to visitors, the 1984 Act only imposes a duty in specific circumstances involving known and foreseeable dangers.
It applies where:
- A dangerous condition exists on the land
- The occupier is aware of that danger
- The occupier knows people may come near it
- It would be reasonable to offer protection
This most commonly arises in cases involving:
- Abandoned or derelict buildings
- Unsecured construction sites
- Dangerous land features
- Industrial premises
When Does a Duty Arise Under the 1984 Act?
Under Section 1 of the Act, a duty is owed only if three conditions are satisfied:
- The occupier is aware of the danger (or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists).
- The occupier knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that someone may come into the vicinity of the danger.
- The risk is one against which the occupier may reasonably be expected to offer some protection.
All three elements must be present.
If they are, the occupier owes a duty to take reasonable care to prevent injury from the identified danger.
What Does “Reasonable Protection” Mean?
The duty under the 1984 Act is narrower than under the 1957 Act.
Occupiers are not required to make premises fully safe for trespassers. However, they may need to take reasonable steps such as:
- Securing abandoned buildings
- Locking gates or fencing off hazardous areas
- Posting clear warning signs
- Boarding up unsafe structures
- Repairing extremely dangerous defects
The law balances personal responsibility with the occupier’s knowledge of foreseeable risk.
Common Situations Where the 1984 Act Applies
Claims under the 1984 Act commonly arise in cases involving:
- Abandoned or derelict buildings
- Unsecured construction sites
- Open shafts or pits
- Unfenced drops or cliffs
- Disused industrial land
- Dangerous machinery left accessible
- Uncovered wells or water hazards
A recurring issue is children entering unsecured premises. The courts recognise that children may not appreciate certain risks in the same way adults do.
The Importance of Foreseeability
Foreseeability is central to claims under the 1984 Act.
An occupier is not automatically liable simply because someone trespassed and was injured.
The court will consider:
- Was it foreseeable that people might trespass?
- Had there been previous incidents?
- Was the danger obvious or concealed?
- How serious was the risk?
- How easy would it have been to reduce the risk?
For example, if children regularly enter an abandoned site through a broken fence and the occupier is aware of this, failing to repair the fence or secure dangerous features may amount to a breach.
Obvious Risks and Personal Responsibility
The 1984 Act recognises that some dangers are obvious.
Courts may find that an occupier is not liable where:
- The risk was clearly apparent
- The injured person voluntarily accepted the risk
- The occupier had no reason to expect anyone would be present
Personal responsibility plays a greater role under the 1984 Act than under the 1957 Act.
Differences Between the 1957 and 1984 Acts
While both Acts concern premises liability, there are important differences:
1957 Act | 1984 Act |
Applies to lawful visitors | Applies to trespassers and non-visitors |
Imposes a “common duty of care” | Imposes a limited duty in defined circumstances |
Focuses on making premises reasonably safe | Focuses on protection from known dangers |
Broader scope of protection | Narrower and more restrictive |
The 1984 Act does not create a general obligation to make land safe for all intruders. It addresses specific, foreseeable dangers.
Proving a Claim Under the 1984 Act
To succeed, a claimant must prove:
- A dangerous condition existed.
- The occupier knew (or should have known) about it.
- The occupier knew (or should have known) that people might come near it.
- Reasonable steps were not taken to reduce the risk.
- The breach caused the injury.
- Photographs of the site
- Prior complaints or reports
- Evidence of previous trespassing
- Maintenance records
- Witness statements
Why the 1984 Act Matters
The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 reflects a balance between:
- Protecting landowners from excessive liability, and
- Preventing occupiers from ignoring serious, foreseeable dangers.
It ensures that occupiers cannot simply disregard hazardous conditions where they know people are likely to encounter them.
Why Choose NJS Law for Your Occupier Liability Claim?
When you are injured on someone else’s property, you need clear advice from solicitors who understand premises liability law and insurer tactics.
At NJS Law, we act exclusively for injured individuals. We understand the physical, financial and emotional impact of unexpected accidents. You can read what clients say about our service on our NJS Law reviews.
When you instruct NJS Law, you can expect:
- Clear, honest advice
- Thorough investigation of liability
- Strategic handling of insurers
- Realistic assessment of compensation
- No Win No Fee representation in appropriate cases
We handle claims involving:
- Slip and fall accidents
- Supermarket accidents
- Restaurant and café injuries
- Landlord negligence
- Injuries at private homes
- Accidents in public buildings
Every case is handled with care and attention to detail.
Speak To NJS Law Today
If you have suffered an injury on someone else’s property, early advice can make a significant difference.
Contact our Occupier Liability Solicitors today for a confidential discussion about your situation. We will explain:
- Whether you have a valid claim
- What your claim may be worth
- How the No Win No Fee process works
- The next steps to protect your rights
There is no obligation to proceed — just clear, professional advice.
Call us today or complete our online enquiry form to speak with a specialist occupier liability solicitor.
Your recovery matters. Your rights matter.
Let NJS Law help you secure the compensation you deserve.
→ Learn more About Us
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a trespasser really claim compensation?
Yes, but only in limited circumstances.
A trespasser must prove that the occupier knew of the danger, knew people might encounter it, and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent injury.
Claims are typically more difficult than those brought under the 1957 Act.
Does the Act apply to children who trespass?
Yes.
Courts may take into account that children are less likely to appreciate risks.
If an occupier knows that children regularly access a dangerous area, they may be expected to take reasonable steps to secure it.
What if the danger was obvious?
If a risk is obvious and the injured person voluntarily accepted it, the occupier may have a defence.
However, each case depends on the specific facts, including the age of the injured person and the nature of the hazard.
Are landowners liable for natural features like lakes or cliffs?
Not automatically.
Courts often consider whether the danger was a natural and obvious feature of the landscape.
Liability may arise if the occupier created or significantly increased the risk, or failed to act despite knowing of a specific foreseeable danger.
Does the occupier have to fence off all dangerous land?
No.
The law does not require occupiers to eliminate all risks.
The question is whether reasonable steps were taken in light of foreseeable trespassing and the seriousness of the danger.
What is the time limit for bringing a claim under the 1984 Act?
In most cases, the time limit is three years from the date of the accident (or date of knowledge).
Different rules apply to children and individuals lacking mental capacity.
CONTACT US
Get in touch using the form below or via the following methods: