A guide to the Defective Premises Act 1972 (the DPA) – Zenith PI Blog
‘The DPA 1972 is an important, but often misunderstood, piece of legislation within personal injury.’
Zenith PI Blog, 17th October 2014
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
Category: defective premises
Mind the Step 2 – The bannister that wasn’t – NearlyLegal
“This is the second of two recent cases on Defective Premises Act 1972 and stairs. There is now a third case on Occupiers Liability Act 1957 with our note to come shortly.”
NearlyLegal, 16th August 2012
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Jenson and another v Faux – WLR Daily
Jenson and another v Faux [2011] EWCA Civ 423; [2011] WLR (D) 133
“A contractor who carried out works to a dwelling owed a duty under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 to see that the work was done in a workmanlike or professional manner. That duty was owed to the person for whom the works were carried out and the purchaser to whom that property was subsequently sold where the dwelling was new, or if refurbished or extended, it was wholly different from the old dwelling. The Act did not apply to improvements which did not sufficiently change the character of the property so as to amount to a new dwelling.”
WLR Daily, 13th April 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Bole and another v Huntsbuild Ltd and another – WLR Daily
Bole and another v Huntsbuild Ltd and another [2009] EWHC 483 (TCC); [2009] WLR (D) 98
“A finding that the premises were in imminent danger of collapse was not a necessary precursor to making a finding under the Defective Premises Act 1972 that a dwelling house was unfit for human habitation; and unfitness for habitation was to be construed as extending to defects of quality rendering the dwelling unsuitable for its purpose as well as to dangerous defects, regardless of whether such a defect was confined to one part of the dwelling or whether the effects of the defect were evident at the time when the dwelling was completed; and where there were a number of defects, it was necessary to consider the effect of the defects as a whole.”
WLR Daily, 17th March 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
