The householder sought compensation under the Act, for the disturbance in the laying of a drain in the highway abutting the claimant’s house and furniture shop. Because of the constraints of the work site, excavated soil had been thrown up against the house and shop, with the result that access to the property (particularly for … Continue reading Lingke v Christchurch Corporation: CA 1912
Non-compliance with a Public Health Act 1875 notice did not necessarily and naturally involve damage to the defendant’s fair name.Buckley LJ summarised the effect of the Quartz Hill case: ‘So the exception of civil proceedings, so far as they are excepted, depends, not upon any essential difference between civil and criminal proceedings, but upon the … Continue reading Wiffen v Bailey and Romford Urban District Council: CA 1915
Parker J said that ‘the mere fact that a natural watercourse is culverted or piped by the several owners of the lands which are intersected by it does not make it a drain or sewer so as to vest it in the local authority’ under the 1875 Act. Judges: Parker J Citations:  1 Ch … Continue reading Shepherd v Croft: 1911
Meat had been seized under section 116 of the 1875 Act as unfit for human consumption. Although the butcher was acquitted of any offence under section 117 of that Act, on the grounds that he was unaware that it was unfit for consumption, it was found that he was nonetheless ‘in default’ for the purpose … Continue reading Hobbs v Winchester Corporation: CA 18 Jun 1910
The plaintiffs, as the urban authority of a borough, had under s. 150 of the Public Health Act, 1875, and the Gateshead Improvement Act 1867, some years before action brought paved and made up certain streets, and had from time to time apportioned the expenses thereof among the owners of the premises fronting thereon. The … Continue reading Mayor and Others of Gateshead v Lumsden: CA 10 Mar 1914
A company owning a tramway and a light railway which were run as one system claimed to be assessed under the Public Health Act 1875* on one-fourth of the annual value of its whole undertaking. The local authority claimed to rate the tramway on the full annual value. Held that a tramway is not a … Continue reading Tottenham Urban District Council v Metropolitan Electric Tramways Ltd: HL 24 Jul 1913
The claimants sought damages after the loss of business when the defendants’ premises were the source of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease. The organism had escaped from their premises via a broken drain. Held: Much of the damage claimed was for economic loss. The number of people who would be brought within the … Continue reading D Pride and Partners (A Firm) and Others v Institute for Animal Health and Others: QBD 31 Mar 2009
The exercise of the right of an owner of property to discharge into a public sewer conferred by section 21 of the 1875 Act could not be prevented by the local authority on the ground that the discharge was creating a nuisance. It was for the local . .
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
Sewage works could not be treated as ‘premises’ under the section. ‘The very magnitude of the authority conferred upon justices by the sections under consideration affords a powerful argument that they are intended for ordinary and comparatively simple cases . .’ Citations: (1889) 22 QBD 520 Statutes: Public Health Act 1875 91 Cited by: Not … Continue reading Regina v Parlby: 1889
Until 1919 Mr. Levene had been both resident and ordinarily resident in the UK. Then, for five years he spent about five months (mainly in the summer) each year, staying in hotels in the UK and receiving medical attention or pursuing religious and social activities. He spent the remaining months staying in hotels abroad. The … Continue reading Levene v Inland Revenue Commissioners: HL 1928
The right of discharge was implicit in the express terms of section 17 of the 1875 Act, which by restricting the right to discharge foul water into any watercourse impliedly recognised the existence of a right to discharge treated effluent and surface water. Judges: North J Citations:  2 Ch 291 Statutes: Public Health Act … Continue reading Durrant v Branksome Urban District Council: 1897
Lord Russell CJ said of section 13: ‘the vesting . . is not a giving of the property in the sewer and in the soil . . but giving such ownership and such rights only as are necessary for the purpose of carrying out the duties of a local authority’ Judges: Lord Russell CJ Citations: … Continue reading Bradford v Mayor of Eastbourne: 1896
A right to discharge surface water and treated effluent into private watercourses was impliedly conferred on local authorities by the Public Health Act 1875. Section 15 of that Act imposed on local authorities a duty to cause such sewers to be made as might be necessary for effectually draining their district. The extent of that … Continue reading Durrant v Branksome Urban District Council: CA 1897
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent lender of its property rights. It was also argued that it was not possible to make a declaration … Continue reading Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2): HL 10 Jul 2003
This appeal is concerned with the liability of a local authority for what is alleged to have been a negligent failure to exercise its social services functions so as to protect children from harm caused by third parties. The principal question of law which it raises is whether a local authority or its employees may … Continue reading Poole Borough Council v GN and Another: SC 6 Jun 2019
A street was vested in an urban authority under the Public Health Act 1875. It declined sharply and was bounded on one side by a retaining wall about five feet high separating it from land at a higher level. The land and the wall were the property of a private owner. In pursuance of section … Continue reading Sheppard v Glossop Corporation: CA 1921
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter. Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder to seek damages against advisers to … Continue reading Johnson v Gore Wood and Co: HL 14 Dec 2000
The Court was asked whether interest payable under rule 14.23(7) of the Insolvency Rules 2016 is ‘yearly interest’ within the meaning of section 874 of the Income Tax Act 2007. If so, the administrators must deduct income tax before paying interest to creditors. Lehmann Brothers had become insolvent, but in the administration a substantial surplus … Continue reading Revenue and Customs v Joint Administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe): SC 13 Mar 2019
The claimant complained of misfeasance in public office by the prisons for having opened and read protected correspondence whilst he was in prison. The respondent argued that he had suffered no loss. The judge had found that bad faith was established in three prison officers. In one case the officer opened the letter in front … Continue reading Watkins v Home Office and others: HL 29 Mar 2006
The Council issued a nuisance notice in respect of sewage being deposited on a property within its area. The statutory nuisance was accepted. The issue was as to whether the sewage system was a public sewer. The judge had found that the original system had, in 1937, served only one property, and therefore had remained … Continue reading City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council v Yorkshire Water Services Ltd: Admn 19 Sep 2001
Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements. Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a positive duty to require an improvement in the sound-proofing of a building, well beyond standards which … Continue reading Southwark London Borough Council v Mills/Tanner; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council: HL 21 Oct 1999
In Douglas, the claimants said that the defendants had interfered with their contract to provide exclusive photographs of their wedding to a competing magazine, by arranging for a third party to infiltrate and take and sell unauthorised photographs. In OBG, the defendants acted as receivers under an invalid charge, and were accused of unlawful interference … Continue reading Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others; similar: HL 2 May 2007
(Trinidad and Tobago) The claimant had been held after arrest on suspicion of theft. He was held for several months before the case was dismissed, the posecution having made no apparent attempt to further the prosecution. He appealed against refusal of damages for malicious prosecution, wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. Held: The appeal failed. The … Continue reading Williamson v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago: PC 3 Sep 2014
The court was asked: ‘whether a sewerage undertaker under the Water Industry Act 1991 has a statutory right to discharge surface water and treated effluent into private watercourses such as the Respondents’ canals without the consent of their owners.’ Held: The appeals of the sewerage company succeeded. Such discharges were in their nature a trespass, … Continue reading The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd and Another v United Utilities Water Plc: SC 2 Jul 2014
Appropriation was not in sufficient form The claimants had challenged an order supporting the decision of the Council to use their allotments for a new primary school, saying that the land had be appropriated as allotment land, and that therefore the consent of the minister was needed. Held: The appeal failed. The use of the … Continue reading Adamson, Regina (on The Application of) v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 18 Feb 2020
Exercise of Ministerial Discretion The Minister had power to direct an investigation in respect of any complaint as to the operation of any marketing scheme for agricultural produce. Milk producers complained about the price paid by the milk marketing board for their milk when compared with prices paid to producers in other regions. The Minister … Continue reading Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: HL 14 Feb 1968
Parties had been involved in an action for wrongful trading. This was not persisted with but the claimant sought damages saying that the action was only part of a campaign to do him harm. This appeal raised the question whether the tort of malicious . .
Application had been made to register as a town or village green an area of land which was largely a boggy marsh. The local authority resisted the application wanting to use the land instead for housing. It then rejected advice it received from a . .
The Court was asked whether the Crown is bound by the prohibition of smoking in most enclosed public places and workplaces, contained in Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Health Act 2006.
Held: However reluctantly, the claimant’s appeal was . .
The defendants erected water-closets on their premises, the drains from which they connected with two small natural water-courses, which had become sewers, and were, therefore, vested in the plaintiffs, a local board. Through these sewers the sewage . .