LEGAL DUTIES OF INNKEEPERS UNDER THE COMMON LAW

What law to be used in Sabah & Sarawak? • Since Innkeepers Act 1952 is not applicable in West Malaysia, the common law (English common law) will be used to settle any disputes arising in hotels in Sabah & Sarawak. • Need to distinguish between Public Hotels and Private Hotels as the legal duties differ according to their legal status.

RIGHTS/ LIABILITY

PUBLIC HOTELS

PRIVATE HOTELS

1

Right of accommodation

Respectable travellers have a right to accommodation if available

No one has a right to accommodation.

2

Right of Lien

Has the right to detain guests’ properties as securities for unpaid bills

No right to detain guests’ properties for unpaid bills

3

Liability of the Innkeeper

Innkeeper is liable for loss or damage to guests’ properties unless guests are negligent

Not liable for damage or loss unless it is the negligence of the innkeeper

LEGAL DUTIES OF HOTELIERS / INNKEEPERS • All innkeepers MUST receive any traveller who is willing to pay a reasonable sum for the services and facilities provided.

• The traveller must be in a fit state to be received.

• If the innkeeper refuses to receive a traveller without just cause, the innkeeper can be guilty for an indictable offence (kesalahan yg boleh didakwa) [distinguish this with summary offences – only fines/compounds]

ROTHFIELD v NORTH BRITISH HOTELS (1920) • A traveller is entitled to choose any hotel which he desires to be a guest and the defendants (the inkeeper) does not have the right to put the traveller, desiring the use of their hotel, to the trouble of an expense to find another hotel. • However, this is not a strict liability on the part of the innkeeper as held in this case where it was lawful for the innkeeper to ask the traveller to leave the hotel because since he was a German, that offended many guests of the hotel who were British Army soldiers.

No person can be a guest without the innkeeper’s consent This consent can be implied when the innkeeper or his agent assigns the traveller to his room or when food or refreshment is served at his request.

Thus, the innkeeper is given the choice at law to consent or refuse the traveller.

MEDAWAR v GRAND HOTEL CO (1891)

• The innkeeper whilst under a legal duty to provide accommodation, food and refreshment is not bound to receive travellers when all bedrooms have been taken up.

BROWNE v BRANDT (1902)

• The innkeeper is also allowed by law to refuse travellers who do not mind sleeping in public areas such as toilets or restaurants

FELL v KNIGHT (1841)

• An innkeeper is only bound under the law to provide reasonable accommodation.

DUTIES OF AN INNKEEPER INCLUDE: • • • • • •

Duty to provide refreshment Duty to receive guests at night Duty in relation to registration of guests Duty to provide adequate facilities Duty to refrain from discrimination Duty to make reasonable charges

Duty to provide refreshment • Only the duty to provide reasonable food and drink if requested by the traveller.

• Not oblige to replenish food.

• But, MUST provide refreshment

Duty to receive guests at night • The innkeeper has a duty to receive guests at any time even in late hours at night.

• Judge Coleridge in R v Ivens (1835) mentioned: “ …a late hour of the night was the time that the traveller most required to be received into an inn. I think…if the traveller conducts himself properly, the innkeeper is bound to admit him, at whatever hour of the night he may arrive…”

Duty in relation to registration of guests R v Ivens (1835) An innkeeper cannot refuse to receive a traveller simply because the traveller refuses to give his name and address.

Duty to provide adequate facilities • An innkeeper must not only willing to receive travellers as guests, he must also shelter and entertain them. • But, the duty is based on reasonableness. The capacity of the innkeeper is considered to ensure shelter and safety to the travellers and their goods and belongings. • Winkworth v Raven (1931) The innkeeper was not liable to provide the plaintiff with heated garage to park his car and hence not responsible to pay for any damages suffered by plaintiff.

Other cases

Duty to refrain from discrimination • In the UK, it is unlawful to discriminate anyone concerning the provision of goods, facilities or services – s.29 of Sex Discrimination Act 1975 & 1986; s.20 of Race Relations Act 1976. • The discriminatory actions could be one of the followings:a) Refusing or deliberately omitting to provide at all (goods, services & facilities). b) Refusing or deliberately omitting to provide of like quality to all. c) Refusing or deliberately omitting to provide on like terms, or in like manner as normal.

Constantine v Imperial Hotels Limited (1944) • The plaintiff in this case was from the West Indies of Black Afro Caribbean descend. He was ushered to Bedford Hotel which also belonged to the same innkeeper. It was held that although he was a man of coloured skin, no grounds existed on which the defendants were entitled to refuse to receive and lodge him. The innkeeper owed a separate duty not to discriminate at two separate hotels that he owned.

Gill v El Vino Co. Ltd (1983) • Refusing to serve a woman seated at the bar and requiring her to be seated at the table before being served was held to be discriminatory.

s.29(3) Sex Discrimination Act 1975 • If sharing the same facilities between the sexes at the same time would cause embarrassment to one another, it is allowed to restrict facilities and services to one gender only. • For example: sharing the swimming pool or spa or hair saloon.

Persons With Disabilities Act 2008 • Section 26 • Easy access for disabled people to enter buildings and use services.

• Under the building by-laws, the government and owner of the building must ensure the design of and equipment used in the building to be disabled-friendly.

Duty to make reasonable charges • An innkeeper may only charge reasonable charges for the amount of services rendered. • If he is allowed to charge what he pleased, he would make the right to be received as guests meaningless. • Too unreasonable a charge for accommodation and other facilities at an inn is contrary to rights, it would become a privilege.

Host-Guest relationship • When a traveller comes to an inn and is received by the innkeeper, the relationship of host and guest is thereby established – Pinkerton v Woodward (1867). • No relationship exists if the innkeeper invites his friends for a social dinner at the restaurant or if there is an interview going on conducted by the hotel. Hence, all the above duties do not apply to the innkeeper.

Common Law Duty to Safeguard Property of Guests • At common law, innkeepers are strictly liable for the property of their guests since recorded time.

• Innkeepers are insurers of the goods of their guests subject to any defence available to him.

– Calyes Case (1584) – Aria v Bridge House Hotel (Staines) Ltd (1927)