The local authority brought complaint against the company that they failed to supply appropriate wash hand basins for staff near working areas. A number of notices were served each of which specified measures which should be taken. The appellants sought to impugn the notices on a series of grounds for non-compliance with the provisions of section 10. Section 39 of the 1990 Act contains provisions for appeal to the court and which empowered the court ‘to cancel or affirm the notice and, if it affirms it may do so either in its original form or with such modifications as the court may in the circumstance think fit’.
Held: Having referred to a series of decisions of the court on Enforcement notices under planning regulations: ‘Accepting that guidance from the authority, it may be observed that the overall effect, in particular of Lord Denning’s statement of the correct approach, differs very little from the wording of paragraph 22 of the Codes of Practice. Whether one applies that paragraph of the Code as a statutory requirement which in the circumstances one is probably bound to do or whether one applies the common law approach as described by Lord Denning the question is this: does the notice enable the recipient to know what is wrong and why it is wrong? The requirement is that the notice should be clear and easily understood.’ Dealing with the question of amendment of the notice by the justices: ‘The first question, therefore, is whether the notice is one that should stand or not and, in a case such as the present where, as in my judgment, the notice is not in accordance with the statute, it follows that it is a case for cancellation, and unless the notice is affirmed no question of modifying or amending it can arise. It is possible to easily envisage cases where notices might be varied and affirmed but where the magistrates after hearing the appeal and no doubt hearing evidence, might differ from the authority as to what requirements the notice should contain . . . Suffice it to say for present purposes that in my judgment there is no basis in law that the authority can ask for the notices to be modified or amended so as to lead to their being upheld rather than declared invalid . . .’
Judges:
Evans LJ
Citations:
[1993] COD 383
Statutes:
Cited by:
Cited – BT Fleet Ltd v McKenna Admn 17-Mar-2005
The company appealed a notice requiring them to avoid th eneed for its employees to carry out manual handling operations.
Held: The notice was inadequate, and the magistrates had been wrong to try to improve it by adding to it. The inspector . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Consumer
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.224052
