Home › Occupiers' liability guides › The Occupiers' Liability Act 1984
Guide · Occupiers' liability
The Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 Explained
The Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 covers people who aren't lawful visitors, such as trespassers. An occupier only owes them a duty if it knew about a danger, knew people might come near it, and could reasonably be expected to offer some protection. The duty is much narrower than the one owed to visitors, so these claims are harder, but they can succeed, especially where children are involved.
Being somewhere without permission doesn't always mean you can't claim. This guide explains when the 1984 Act applies, what occupiers have to do and how these claims are proved.
- Who it protects
- Trespassers and other non-visitors
- When a duty arises
- Only when 3 conditions are met
- What it covers
- Personal injury, not damage to property
- Children
- Their age is taken into account
What is the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984?
The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 protects lawful visitors, such as customers and guests. The 1984 Act covers people who aren't visitors. That mainly means trespassers, but it also includes some others, such as people walking on open land under the "right to roam".
Occupiers don't have to make their land safe for everyone who might wander onto it. But they can't ignore serious dangers they know about when they know people are likely to come near them. Claims under the 1984 Act often involve:
- Abandoned or derelict buildings
- Unsecured building sites
- Disused industrial land and machinery left accessible
- Open shafts, pits, unfenced drops or uncovered water hazards
The Act only covers injuries to people, not damage to belongings. See our guide to the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 for the duty owed to visitors.
When does an occupier owe a duty?
Under section 1 of the Act, an occupier only owes a duty to a non-visitor if all 3 of these apply:
1. It knew about the danger
The occupier was aware of the danger, or had reasonable grounds to believe it existed.
2. It knew people might come near
It knew, or had reasonable grounds to believe, that someone might come into the area of the danger.
3. Protection was reasonable
The risk was one it could reasonably be expected to offer some protection against.
If all 3 apply, the occupier must take reasonable care to make sure the person isn't injured by that danger.
What does reasonable protection mean?
Occupiers don't have to make premises fully safe for trespassers. Depending on the danger, reasonable steps might include:
- Securing or boarding up abandoned buildings
- Locking gates and fencing off hazardous areas
- Putting up clear warning signs
- Repairing or removing serious hidden dangers
In some cases, a clear warning or steps to discourage people from approaching the danger can be enough. And the occupier owes no duty for a risk that someone willingly accepted, which matters most for adults taking obvious risks.
The 1957 Act and the 1984 Act compared
1957 Act: visitors
- Protects lawful visitors
- A general duty of reasonable care
- Aims to keep visitors reasonably safe
- Covers injury and damage to property
1984 Act: non-visitors
- Protects trespassers and other non-visitors
- A duty only when 3 conditions are met
- Aims to protect against known dangers
- Covers personal injury only
Children and foreseeability
Many 1984 Act claims involve children who got into somewhere they shouldn't have been. Courts recognise that children may not understand risks the way adults do, so an occupier who knows children regularly get onto a dangerous site may be expected to do more to keep them out or protect them.
In every case, the court will look at what the occupier could foresee, including:
- Whether it knew people were getting onto the land
- Whether there had been incidents or complaints before
- Whether the danger was obvious or hidden
- How serious the risk was
- How easy it would have been to reduce it
For example, if children regularly got onto an abandoned site through a broken fence and the occupier knew, failing to repair the fence or secure a dangerous feature may be a breach. See personal injury claims for children.
What you need to prove
These claims depend heavily on the facts. You'll usually need to show:
A danger
A dangerous condition existed on the land.
They knew
The occupier knew, or should have known, about it.
People came near
They knew, or should have known, people might come near it.
No reasonable steps
They didn't take reasonable steps to reduce the risk.
It caused the injury
That failure caused the injury.
Useful evidence includes photos of the site, earlier complaints or reports, signs that people regularly got in, maintenance records and witness statements.
The 1984 Act: FAQs
Can a trespasser really claim compensation?
Yes, but only in limited circumstances. You'd need to show the occupier knew about the danger, knew people might come near it, and didn't take reasonable steps to protect against it. These claims are usually harder than claims by lawful visitors.
Does the 1984 Act apply to children who trespass?
Yes. Courts take into account that children may not appreciate risks the way adults do. If an occupier knows children regularly get onto a dangerous site, it may be expected to take reasonable steps to keep them out or protect them.
What if the danger was obvious?
If the risk was obvious and the person willingly accepted it, the occupier may have a defence. But each case depends on the facts, including the age of the person injured and the type of danger.
Are landowners responsible for natural features like lakes or cliffs?
Not usually. Courts generally don't expect occupiers to protect people from the obvious risks of natural features. Liability is more likely if the occupier created or increased the danger, or ignored a specific danger it knew about.
Does an occupier have to fence off all dangerous land?
No. The law doesn't expect occupiers to remove every risk. The question is whether they took reasonable steps, given how likely it was that people would get in and how serious the danger was.
What is the time limit for a claim under the 1984 Act?
You usually have 3 years from the date of the accident, or from when you first knew about your injury, to start court proceedings. For children, the 3 years doesn't start until they turn 18. See how long you have to claim.
Injured on someone else's land?
Talk to our team for free, with no obligation. We'll look at what happened and give you an honest view of whether you have a claim. Eligible claims are handled on a No Win No Fee basis.