The issue is whether the defendants, Isadoras and Flashers Berhad could be held liable for the injuries

suffered by the plaintiffs, Mawit, Bobi and Katie, under the tort of negligence of occupiers liability. An occupiers liability arises in a situation where the premises are not as safe as it should reasonably be and the defective causes injury or damage to the plaintiff (Norchaya Talib, 2003). The definition of an occupier is laid down in the case of Wheat v Lacon & Co Ltd by Lord Denning, where His Lordship said that if a person has any degree of control over the state of premises it is enough. The test used to determine an occupier is the test of occupational control over the premises. Liability is not based on ownership. A person could come in the definition of an occupier though he did not occupy the premise, provided that that person has sufficient control over the premise. Once it is established that a person has sufficient control over the premises, he is deemed to be the occupier, and may be sued for any injuries sustained on the premises. An occupier is someone who has the immediate supervision and control and the power of permitting or prohibiting the entry of another persons. In the case of China Insurance Co Ltd v Woh Hup (Pte) Ltd, in applying the control test as laid down in Wheat v Lacon, the court held that the contractor of a construction site was an occupier of the premise. In Chang Fang Li v United Engineers (M) Sdn Bhd, it was held that if a contractor is shown to have overall charge and control and possession of a construction site, then he may be deemed to have occupation as well as possession of the site, together with overall responsibilities. In the case of Lembaga Kemajuan Tanah Persekutuan v Mariam, it was held that the defendant, FELDA, remained as the occupier even when the possession of the land was given to a contractor because the defendant was still retained control over the premises. Here, the kongsi-house which collapsed on the deceased was built for common benefit of the defendant, the contractor and the labourers and the defendant did not ceased to be in possession and continued to be the occupier of the site. Premises mean any fixed or movable structures, for example, building, land spaces and vehicle use for carrying person. In this situation, the first plaintiff, Isadoras, a local nightclub is the occupier. It is to be noted that duty of care owed by an occupier to the claimant may differ, depending on the type of entrants. There are basically four types of entrants, namely contractual entrants, invitees, licensees and trespassers. A contractual entrants is a person who is on the premises pursuant to a contractual right. There are two types of contractual entrants which are main purpose entrants and ancillary purpose entrants.

Main purpose entrant is a person who enter the premise with the purpose of occupying the whole premise and had paid to be on the premise, for example, a guest in a hotel. Meanwhile, ancillary purpose entrants is a person who has paid to be on the premise for a primary purpose only, for example, a spectator on a sport event. The duty of care owed by the occupier towards a person who is a main purpose entrants is higher than towards a person who is a ancillary purpose entrants. For main purpose entrants, the occupier has a duty of care to ensure that the premises is reasonably safe and adequate for the purpose it was contracted. In MacLenan v Segar, a fire broke out at the defendants hotel and the plaintiff was injured whilst he was trying to escape from the second floor of the building. The court held that the defendant liable for failing to ensure that the premise was safe for habitation, as there was no emergency exit. For ancillary purpose entrants, the occupier has a duty of care to make sure that the premises is reasonably safe for that particular purpose. In the case of Gilmore v London Country Council, the plaintiff fell during an exercise class as the floor was slippery. She successfully claimed against the defendant for the latters failure to ensure that the floor was suitable for physical exercises. In the case of Hall v Brooklands Auto-Racing Club, some spectators at a carracing competition were injured when two cars collided. The defendant was held not liable as the court found that they had discharged their duty in ensuring that the stand was free from any danger as far as was reasonable in those circumstances. In the case of Murray v Haringay Arena,the court denied the plaintiffs claimed when he was struck by a hockey puck while watching a hockey game. A trespasser is a person who enters premises without any express or implied permission of the occupier. His existence on the premises may not be known to the occupier, for example, a wandering chid. A person can be a trespasser if he goes a restricted area or stay on a particular place more than the time allowed. Initially, the court had decided in the case of Robert Addie & Sons Ltd v Dumbreck, that an occupier does not owed a duty of care to a trespasser as he had entered without permission and is therefore is assumed to have accepted all risks and danger. However, the stand adopted by the court now, as laid down in the case of British Railways Board v Herrington is that the occupier must take reasonable steps of common humanity to avoid danger to the trespasser, for example, by giving warnings. For child trespasser, the general principle is that an occupier must accept that children are less careful as compared to adults.

In this situation, the type of entrants made by first and second plaintiffs is ancillary purpose entrants.

To apply in this case,according to the case of Wheat v Lacon,it is showed that Isadora,the night club has degree of control over the premises when the Law Society Of University Mega (LWUM) want to organise a dance at that particular club.It is because the possession of the club belongs to Isadora. According to the case of China Insurance Co Ltd v Woh Hup (Pte) Ltd,the contractor,Flashers Berhad,was the occupier of the premises.It is because Flashers Berhad was still in the process of installing the new lighting system.The premises was given over by Isadoras to Flashers Berhad.It is not necessary for a Flasher Berhad to have entire control of the premises.It is sufficient that Flashers Berhad has some degree of control of the club.

In the case of Chang Fah Lin v United Engineers (M) Sdn Bhd,it showed that if the contractor,Flashers Berhad has the overall charge or might have some of the control and possessions or in charge of particular premises ,Flashers Berhad might have the responsibilities over the premises of the club. In the case of Harris v Berkenhead Corporation,it was showed that no actual possession required by Flashers Berhad in determining who had the sufficient control of the club.The actual possession was belong to Isadoras but Flashers berhad had immediate right of control as soon as they took the possession of the land i.e. as soon as they want to installed the new lightning system at Isadoras Club.They have to take precautions to the LWUM members or whoever enter the premises. In applying the case of Lembaga Kemajuan Tanah Persekutuan v Mariam,although the possession of the club was given to the contractor,Flashers Berhad,but the statutory authority still retained under Isadoras i.e had a control over the premises. Isadoras and Flasher Berhads fulfil the requirements of the test.The conclusion is Isadoras and Flasher is an occupier at that club. In determining whether Flashers Berhad can be held liable when Mawit was injured when he tripped over a wooden left by Flashers Berhad in a dimly lit foyer,it is need to be determined. It is the occupiers duty to ensure that the club are safe for that particular purpose i.e the dance that was held by LWUM. In the case of Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing Club,the responsibilities should be taken by Flashers berhad as Flashers Berhad is the contractor hired by Isadoras to installed the lighting system.Flashers berhad should not left the wooden when they has finished installed the lightning system.Flashers berhad should ensure that the club was safe as soon as the works done by them. Plus, in the case of Gilmore v London Country Council,it is the responsibilities of Isadoras to ensure that the club is safe for the usage of LWUM members.Isadoras failed to make sure that the club is safe for the usage of LWUM members.Isadoras should monitored the work done by Flashers berhad and the wooden should not left at the club as soon as the works done by Flashers Berhad. Isadoras club should take reasonable care but at the same time they do not required to guard the members of the LWUM against every possible danger but only against those dangers that may be reasonably assumed to be possible and expected according to the nature.In this case,Isadoras club need to ensure that the club was safe after the installing of the new lightning system.