Occupiers liability 1984 act evaluation:

• The first argument relating to occupiers liability 1984 act is regarding the amount of claims that are allowed to proceed forward in the court process. One of the advantages of this system is that there is a limited amount of claims that are allowed through the civil court systems due to them not being able to claim personal injury if you are a trespasser.
• This was justified by Lord Hoffman in Tomlinson V Congleton DC (2003). This means that there is a reduced risk of a compensation culture and it protects the defendant from having tom pay any compensation when there wasn’t suppose to be anyone there.
• However one of the disadvantages of occupiers liability is that under the 1984 act, the occupier has to be aware of the danger and has to know, or has reasonable grounds to believe, that the trespasser is in the vicinity of the danger. This subjective test is very inconsistent compared with most other torts. This means that each claim under the 1984 act will depend on its own facts. This makes it very difficult for the lawyers to advise the claimants whether or not they could claim for compensation. An example to show this is Donoghue V Folkestone Properties (2003).
• The second argument of the occupiers liability under the 1984 act is with regarding theprotection needed for children. One of the benefits of this is that there is a higher duty of care owed to children due to them not knowing the potential dangers of that particular action. This was shown in Glasgow Corporation V Taylor (1922), where a 7 year old boy died from picking poisonous berries in a public park which meant that the council was liable.
• However one of the disadvantages of this system is that it does not strike a fair balance between the parties due to them having to take into account people and children that should be under supervision. This means that they will have to pay a large proportion of compensation for the injuries for people who should not be on their land. Thus leading to unfair outcomes and a risk of a compensation culture. 
• The third argument is the leeway that this act is allowing trespassers to claim compensation for injuries that they have incurred after entering a property unlawfully. One of the benefits of this system is that there is a mora; duty to take care of others. This means that trespassers should receive compensation for the damage caused by the occupier. This is the main aim of tort to compensate the injured.
• However one of the disadvantages of this system is that it increases the risk of a compensation culture due to it allowing criminals to receive compensation for illegal acts. Also it is an illogical justification for the compensation which will lead to unfair outcomes. 
• The final argument relating to occupiers liability 1984 act is regarding the reforms suggested by the Law Commission. One of the benefits of the reforms suggested is that there would be an introduction of no fault liability whether trespasser compensation would be received. This means that there is an reduced amount of compensation that has to be paid out as an occupier.
• However one of the disadvantages of this reform suggestion is that this would require insurance so would likely lead to an unjust outcomes due to occupiers not having to pay compensation for the injured victim. This goes against the main aim of tort which is to compensate the injured.