Hillen and Pettigrew v ICI (Alkali) Ltd: HL 1936

Stevedores who were lawfully on a barge for the purpose of discharging it, nevertheless became trespassers when they went onto an inadequately supported hatch cover in order to unload some of the cargo. They knew that they ought not to use the covered hatch for this purpose; ‘for them for such a purpose it was out of bounds; they were trespassers’. The stevedores could not complain that the barge owners should have warned them that the hatch cover was not adequately supported. ‘So far as he sets foot on so much of the premises as lie outside the invitation or uses them for purposes which are alien to the invitation he is not an invitee but a trespasser, and his rights must be determined accordingly.’
Lord Atkin
[1936] AC 65 HL(E)
Citing:

  • Cited – The Calgarth CA 1927
    A ship foundered while using a navigable channel other than in the ordinary way of navigation. Scrutton LJ said: ‘When you invite a person into your house to use the staircase, you do not invite him to slide down the bannisters, you invite him to . .
    [1927] P 93

Cited by:

  • Cited – British Railways Board v Herrington HL 16-Feb-1972
    Land-owner’s Possible Duty to Trespassers
    The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser.
    Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a . .
    [1972] AC 877, [1972] 2 WLR 537, [1971] 1 All ER 749, [1972] UKHL 1
  • Cited – Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council and others HL 31-Jul-2003
    The claimant dived into a lake, severely injuring himself. The council appealed, arguing that it owed him no duty of care under the Act since he was a trespasser. It had placed warning signs to deter swimmers.
    Held: The council’s appeal . .
    [2003] UKHL 47, Times 01-Aug-03, Gazette 11-Sep-03, [2003] 3 WLR 705, [2004] 1 AC 46, [2003] NPC 102, [2003] 32 EGCS 68, [2003] 3 All ER 1122, [2004] PIQR P8
  • Cited – Harvey v Plymouth City Council CA 29-Jul-2010
    The Council appealed against a finding of liability under the 1957 Act after the claimant was injured after jumping over a fence to flee hving to pay a taxi, and falling down a steep slope onto a car park. The land had been licenced to the . .
    [2010] EWCA Civ 860, [2010] PIQR P18, [2010] NPC 89

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 December 2020; Ref: scu.182860