The claimant sought damages after the planning authority allowed the first defendant to conduct a manufacturing business in the course of which spraying activities took place which caused them personal injuries and loss of business. Held: The planning system is a regulatory system as envisaged in X (Minors), such that there should be no private … Continue reading Regina v Lam and Others (T/a ‘Namesakes of Torbay’) and Borough of Torbay: CA 30 Jul 1997
A Local Authority found guilty of a statutory nuisance is not thereby liable for a civil damages suit. Citations: Times 26-Nov-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 998, [1997] 1 WLR 956, (1997) 29 HLR 640, [1997] Env LR 157 Links: Bailii Statutes: Public Health Act 1936 Part II (Nuisance etc) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Cited – … Continue reading Issa (Suing By her Next Friend and Father Issa) and Issa (Suing By her Next Friend and Father Issa) v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Hackney: CA 19 Nov 1996
An offence arose under the 1936 Act when a complaint was brought by an aggrieved person. A person was entitled to make a complaint under section 94 without first serving an abatement notice. Judges: Lord Griffiths Citations: [1990] 3 All ER 385, [1990] 1 WLR 1350 Statutes: Public Health Act 1936 94 Jurisdiction: England and … Continue reading Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council v Bujok: HL 1990
An abatement order had been made against the council under the 1936 Act. The tenant appealed a finding that the magistrates had had no jurisdiction to award compensation under the 1973 Act. Held: An order under the 1973 Act required a criminal conviction. Section 94 of the 1936 Act created an offence of which the … Continue reading Herbert v Lambeth London Borough Council: QBD 27 Nov 1991
The claimant, in a representative action complained that the works involved in the erection of the Canary Wharf tower constituted a nuisance in that the works created substantial clouds of dust and the building blocked her TV signals, so as to limit her enjoyment of her land. Held: The interference with TV reception by an … Continue reading Hunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd: HL 25 Apr 1997
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
The court asked whether proceedings under s99 were civil or criminal. Held: ‘the proper interpretation of this section [section 99] leads to the conclusion that the individual can by information invoke section 94′ The offence was under s94 initiated by complaint under s99. Section 99 enabled an individual to bring proceedings by information in a … Continue reading Regina v Newham Justices, ex parte Hunt etc: CA 1976
It was argued that proceedings brought under s94 by information not complaint were a nullity. Held: The argument failed. A failure to comply with an abatement notice was a criminal offence, but proceedings could also be brought by complaint under s99 Citations: [1972] 1 All ER 260, [1972] 1 WLR 203 Statutes: Public Health Act … Continue reading Northern Ireland Trailers Ltd v Preston County Borough: 1972
The plaintiff brought an action for nuisance against the local authority for having discharged insufficiently treated effluent into the river Derwent. Held: The plaintiffs: ‘have a perfectly good cause of action for nuisance, if they can show that the defendants created or continued the cause of the trouble; and it must be remembered that a … Continue reading Pride of Derby and Derbyshire Angling Association Ltd v British Celanese Ltd: CA 1953
The claimant had been involved in a monthly cycle ride through central London which had continued for many years. The ride took place without any central organisation and without any route being pre-planned. They objected to being required to apply for a licence and to file a route with the Commissioner under section 11. The … Continue reading Kay v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis: HL 26 Nov 2008
The claimant company said that the 2010 Act was outside the competence of the Scottish Parliament insofar as it severely restricted the capacity of those selling cigarettes to display them for sale. They suggested two faults. First, that the subject matters were reserved to the UK Parliament under the 1998 Act. Second that the Act … Continue reading Imperial Tobacco Ltd v The Lord Advocate: SC 12 Dec 2012
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision to serve an abatement notice in respect of premises where the normal noise incidents of living were heard in neighbouring flats, which notices were to be abated by noise insulation. Held: The contention that a lack of adequate sound insulation can cause premises to be in such … Continue reading Vella v London Borough of Lambeth: Admn 14 Nov 2005
The Court was asked as to the registration of a playing field as a ‘town or village green’. Local residents asserted that their use of the land, having been ‘as of right’ required the registration. They now appealed against rejection of that argument. Held: The basic issues was ‘where land is provided and maintained by … Continue reading Barkas, Regina (on The Application of ) v North Yorkshire County Council and Another: SC 6 Mar 2014
The defendant sought legal aid to defend an action to abate a statutory nuisance under the 1936 Act. Held: Such an action was criminal in nature. The action had been brought under section 99, but the imposition of a penalty under s94 was a criminal sentence. ‘On analysis, the position seem to be that proceedings … Continue reading Regina v Inner London Crown Court ex parte Bentham: QBD 1989
On the wording of section 94(2), the relevant date for determining whether the alleged nuisance exists is the date of the hearing before the magistrates. Accordingly, if it has by that time been abated, no offence is committed. Citations: [1981] 1 WLR 1325 Statutes: Public Health Act 1936 94(2) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: … Continue reading Coventry City Council v Doyle: QBD 1981
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
cw Public Health – Nuisance – Complaint by tenant – Local authority’s compulsory acquisition of house in clearance area – Local authority postponing demolition as house capable of providing accommodation of standard adequate for time being – House statutory nuisance – whether nuisance order appropriateThe local authority compulsorily acquired a house in a clearance area … Continue reading Salford City Council v McNally: QBD 19 Dec 1974
The claimant dived into a lake, severely injuring himself. The council appealed liability, 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 succeeded. The risk of injury arose, not from any danger due to the … Continue reading Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council and others: HL 31 Jul 2003
The plaintiff bought her apartment, but discovered later that the foundations were defective. The local authority had supervised the compliance with Building Regulations whilst it was being built, but had failed to spot the fault. The authority appealed a finding that it was liable, arguing that the claims were time barred and that it had … Continue reading Anns and Others v Merton London Borough Council: HL 12 May 1977
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 defendant had constructed a reservoir to supply water to his mill. Water escaped into nearby disused mineshafts, and in turn flooded the plaintiff’s mine. The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable in damages. Held: The defendant was bound ‘sic uit suo ut non laedat alienum’. ‘The defendants, treating them as the owners … Continue reading Rylands v Fletcher: HL 1868
Article 35-1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies Effective domestic remedy Constitutional complaint on retroactivity of criminal provision on genocide: inadmissible Facts – The applicants were former officials of the then Soviet Socialist Republic of Latvia. In 2003, pursuant to a provision inserted into the Latvian Criminal Code in 1993, they were convicted of crimes contrary to … Continue reading Larionovs And Tess v Latvia (Dec): ECHR 25 Nov 2014
It was not necessary first to serve an abatement notice before commencing proceedings for statutory nuisance under s99. ‘. . . It is surely repugnant to common sense that in the area of legal activity a local authority should be prosecuted by one of its tenants without first being given opportunity to remedy the consequences … Continue reading Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council v Bujok: CA 1989
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 trespasser, the creation by … Continue reading British Railways Board v Herrington: HL 16 Feb 1972
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
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
The defendants appealed their convictions for being members of proscribed organisations. They were members of the ‘Real IRA’, but only the IRA was actually proscribed.
Held: The appeals failed. In construing an Act of Parliament it may be of . .