Curran and another v Northern Ireland Co-ownership Housing Association Ltd and others (Stewart, third party)
Language: English Series: All England Law Reports ; (1987) 2 All ER 13-20(8)Publication details: 1987Description: (See also WB2315-12)Subject(s): Summary: HL 8 April 1987. An appeal by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive from a decision in the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland, on the issue of whether the executive owed a duty of care . The plaintiffs` predecessor in title built an extension to a house with the aid of an improvement grant from the executive. Under the Housing (NI) Order 1976 the executive had to be satisfied that such a dwelling reached certain standards and the work done was to the "satisfaction of the executive". On purchase the plaintiffs found the extension had not been built properly and needed complete rebuilding. The plaintiffs brought an action against the executive on the grounds that they had been negligent in causing or permitting the extension to be constructed defectively. On a trial of the preliminary issues, the judge dismissed the executive from the action, but the CA held that the facts, if proved, could give rise to a duty of care. The executive appealed to the House of Lords. It was held that th| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS37681 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 6131-1001 |
HL 8 April 1987. An appeal by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive from a decision in the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland, on the issue of whether the executive owed a duty of care . The plaintiffs` predecessor in title built an extension to a house with the aid of an improvement grant from the executive. Under the Housing (NI) Order 1976 the executive had to be satisfied that such a dwelling reached certain standards and the work done was to the "satisfaction of the executive". On purchase the plaintiffs found the extension had not been built properly and needed complete rebuilding. The plaintiffs brought an action against the executive on the grounds that they had been negligent in causing or permitting the extension to be constructed defectively. On a trial of the preliminary issues, the judge dismissed the executive from the action, but the CA held that the facts, if proved, could give rise to a duty of care. The executive appealed to the House of Lords. It was held that th