Introduction
This essay examines the legal dispute in Murray v Blackstone Ltd (2025), where the Appellant, Mr Alex Murray, a 13-year-old, suffered severe injuries while exploring an abandoned factory owned by the Respondent, Blackstone Limited. The central moot point on appeal to the Supreme Court is whether Blackstone Limited, as the occupier of the premises, owes a duty of care to Mr Murray, thereby rendering damages for his physical injuries recoverable. This analysis, conducted from the perspective of a law student, argues in favour of the Appellant, asserting that a duty of care exists under the provisions of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 (OLA 1984) and relevant case law. The essay will first outline the legal framework governing occupiers’ liability to trespassers, followed by an application of key principles to the facts of this case. It will address the Court of Appeal’s reliance on Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003] UKHL 47 to deny the claim and argue that the circumstances in Murray warrant a different conclusion. Finally, it will consider the implications of establishing a duty of care in this context.
Legal Framework: Occupiers’ Liability to Trespassers
The law governing an occupier’s liability towards trespassers is primarily enshrined in the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984, which was enacted to provide limited protection to individuals who enter premises without permission. Under Section 1(3) of the OLA 1984, an occupier owes a duty of care to a trespasser if: (a) they are aware of a danger or have reasonable grounds to believe it exists; (b) they know or have reasonable grounds to believe that the trespasser is in the vicinity of the danger; and (c) the risk is one against which, in all the circumstances, they may reasonably be expected to offer some protection. This statutory test establishes a threshold for liability that balances the interests of occupiers with the safety of individuals who may unknowingly expose themselves to harm.
Case law has further clarified the application of this framework. In Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003] UKHL 47, the House of Lords held that an occupier does not owe a duty of care to protect trespassers from obvious risks or dangers arising from their own deliberate actions, such as diving into shallow water. Lord Hoffmann emphasised the principle of personal responsibility, noting that adults engaging in inherently risky activities could not reasonably expect protection from an occupier (Tomlinson, 2003). However, this precedent must be contextualised, particularly when the trespasser is a minor, as in the present case, where the capacity for assessing risk may be diminished.
Application to Murray v Blackstone Ltd: Establishing Duty of Care
Applying the criteria under Section 1(3) of the OLA 1984 to the facts of Murray v Blackstone Ltd, it is evident that Blackstone Limited likely owes a duty of care to the Appellant. First, the Respondent was undeniably aware of the danger posed by the weak floorboards on the second floor of the factory, as a recent inspection had identified the hazardous condition. Furthermore, the presence of a hole in the wall, which provided easy access to the premises, was also known to Blackstone Limited, yet no steps were taken to secure the site. This satisfies the first limb of the test, as the occupier had clear knowledge of the danger.
Second, the Respondent had reasonable grounds to believe that trespassers, such as Mr Murray, were in the vicinity of the danger. The inspection report noted empty snack and drink packets inside the factory, indicating recent unauthorised entry. This evidence suggests that Blackstone Limited was, or should have been, aware that individuals—potentially young people exploring out of curiosity—were accessing the premises. Therefore, the second criterion is met.
Third, the question arises whether the risk was one against which Blackstone Limited should reasonably have offered protection. Given the severity of potential harm (illustrated tragically by Mr Murray’s injuries, including the loss of his left hand), and the minimal cost of basic repairs or improved security measures, it is arguable that reasonable steps should have been taken. Unlike in Tomlinson, where the claimant’s injury resulted from a deliberate and obviously dangerous act, Mr Murray, a 13-year-old, could not reasonably have been expected to appreciate the hidden danger of the weak floorboards. The faded ‘No Entry’ tape and the disclaimer sign outside the factory do not absolve the Respondent of responsibility, as they were insufficient to deter entry or warn of specific hazards within.
Distinguishing Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council
The Court of Appeal’s reliance on Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council to deny Mr Murray’s claim is, in my view, misplaced. While Tomlinson establishes that occupiers are not generally liable for injuries resulting from obvious risks or reckless behaviour, the circumstances in Murray differ significantly. Mr Tomlinson was an adult who made a conscious decision to dive into shallow water, fully aware of the inherent risks (Tomlinson, 2003). In contrast, Mr Murray is a minor, and the danger of the weak floorboards was not visually apparent to him or his companions. The law, as highlighted in academic commentary, often affords greater protection to children due to their limited capacity to assess danger (Hodgson and Lewthwaite, 2007). Indeed, the fact that Blackstone Limited knew of prior unauthorised entries and failed to act further undermines the applicability of the Tomlinson principle of personal responsibility in this case.
Moreover, the disclaimer sign stating that “The Occupier will not be liable for any death or personal injury” is unlikely to be enforceable under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA 1977), particularly Section 2(1), which prohibits the exclusion of liability for personal injury resulting from negligence. Therefore, the Respondent cannot rely on this notice to evade a duty of care.
Implications of Recognising a Duty of Care
Establishing a duty of care in Murray v Blackstone Ltd would have significant implications for both occupiers and potential trespassers. It would reinforce the principle that occupiers must take reasonable steps to mitigate known dangers, especially in premises that are likely to attract vulnerable individuals such as minors. This outcome aligns with the protective intent of the OLA 1984 and acknowledges the societal expectation that property owners bear some responsibility for preventable harm. However, critics might argue that such a ruling could place an undue burden on occupiers to secure derelict properties against all possible risks. While this concern is valid, the law already mitigates excessive liability through the reasonableness standard embedded in Section 1(3) of the OLA 1984.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this essay has argued that Blackstone Limited owes a duty of care to Mr Alex Murray under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984. The Respondent’s knowledge of the dangerous condition of the factory floorboards, awareness of unauthorised entries, and failure to take reasonable protective measures satisfy the statutory criteria for liability. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal’s application of Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council overlooks critical distinctions, particularly the Appellant’s age and the hidden nature of the risk. Recognising a duty of care in this case would uphold the protective aims of the law while maintaining a balanced approach to occupier responsibility. Therefore, the Supreme Court should overturn the Court of Appeal’s decision and allow Mr Murray to recover damages for his severe physical injuries, setting a precedent that reinforces accountability for preventable harm on private premises.
References
- Hodgson, J. and Lewthwaite, J. (2007) Tort Law Textbook. Oxford University Press.
- Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984. UK Legislation.
- Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003] UKHL 47 (House of Lords).
- Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. UK Legislation.
