The owner of a block of houses laid a pipe in the yards at the rear of the houses to carry off their drainage and connected the pipe with a sewer belonging to the Vestry in a neighbouring street. No notice was been given to the Vestry or of any order having been made by them as required by section 74, nor was there evidence of approval having been obtained of the Metropolitan Board of Works under section 69. The block was acquired by the school and when the pipe was found to be defective the school called upon the Vestry to repair it. The Vestry declined to do so on the ground that the pipe was not a sewer vested in or repairable by them. The issue was whether the pipe came within the definition of ‘sewer’ in section 250.
Held: No appropriate order had been made. The work was done with the sanction and authority both of the Vestry and of the Metropolitan Board of Works. If vested in the Vestry this was repairable by the Vestry. Therefore the only question was whether it was so vested in the Vestry. The words absolutely wide and unlimited, ‘all sewers’ thereafter to be made, and it is only sought to cut down those words by suggesting it must mean all sewers lawfully made. There was in this case good ground for presuming that the connection of this sewer for draining the houses with the sewer received the sanction of the Vestry, and, in the absence of any distinct proof to the contrary, received the sanction of the Metropolitan Board of Works. However, even if this could not be made out, it would not follow, if the sanction of the Vestry was given, that the sewer could be held not to be a sewer within the meaning of s.68 merely because the Vestry had failed to perform their statutory duty of first submitting the plans to the Metropolitan Board of Works and obtaining their sanction. It does not follow that because the requisite sanctions have not been obtained the thing constructed is not a sewer. In the language of this legislation I think it is nonetheless a sewer within the meaning of the Act even though that sewer may have come into existence without an assent or approval which, as between public bodies, the statute requires.
Judges:
Lord Herschell
Citations:
[1898] AC 190
Statutes:
Metropolis Local Management Act 1855 69 74
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Land, Utilities
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.179847
