Smith and Others v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd ; Maloco v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd
Language: English Series: Weekly Law Reports ; 1987 WLR 480-512(33)Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: HL 5 February 1987. The defenders bought a cinema in Dunfermline in 1976, with the intention of demolishing it and replacing it with a supermarket . After some initial work, the cinema was left empty and unattended. On several occasions vandalism took place, including an attempt to light a fire in the cinema. In July 1976 a fire was deliberately started in the cinema, resulting in the burning down of the cinema, causing serious damage to adjoining properties. The owners of these properties brought actions agains the defenders for damages claiming that the damage had been caused by their negligence . The Lord Ordinary held in favour of the owners, but the defenders appealed successfully to the First Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session. On appeal by the owners, HL held that as the defenders had not known of the previous acts of vandalism in the cinema involving fire and since the cinema had not otherwise presented an obvious fire risk, they had not been under any duty t| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS37446 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 4559-1001 |
HL 5 February 1987. The defenders bought a cinema in Dunfermline in 1976, with the intention of demolishing it and replacing it with a supermarket . After some initial work, the cinema was left empty and unattended. On several occasions vandalism took place, including an attempt to light a fire in the cinema. In July 1976 a fire was deliberately started in the cinema, resulting in the burning down of the cinema, causing serious damage to adjoining properties. The owners of these properties brought actions agains the defenders for damages claiming that the damage had been caused by their negligence . The Lord Ordinary held in favour of the owners, but the defenders appealed successfully to the First Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session. On appeal by the owners, HL held that as the defenders had not known of the previous acts of vandalism in the cinema involving fire and since the cinema had not otherwise presented an obvious fire risk, they had not been under any duty t