A nuisance notice, requiring a householder to remove a nuisance caused by barking dogs, need not specify the manner in which the nuisance was to be abated, or the degree of reduction which would be acceptable. There was no necessary implication that any works were required. A local authority properly served a simple notice requiring abatement of a nuisance found of a dog barking. It had no general duty to specify the steps required to be undertaken to abate the nuisance save in circumstances where this was clearly required. ‘The local authority does have a choice of merely requiring a result in a particular case. Whether that will give rise to a ground of appeal other than the one with which we are currently concerned, namely that there is an informality, defect, or error in the notice, is an entirely separate matter. There may well be argument about alternative requirements or a whole variety of other matters. We are not concerned with that. . . . In a case such as the present, dealing with barking dogs, there is no necessity, either in setting out the nuisance to indicate the levels of barking which the dogs have exhibited so as to constitute a nuisance, or the precise times when they have been barking so as to constitute a nuisance, or in requiring the abatement of the nuisance, for the nuisance to specify precisely what has to be done about the nuisance.’
Judges:
Schiemann L.J
Citations:
Gazette 10-Mar-1999, Times 14-Apr-1999, Gazette 24-Mar-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 885, (1997) Env LR 128
Statutes:
Environmental Protection Act 1990 80(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Wheatley 1885
If the magistrates think it necessary for things to be done to abate a nuisance they must specify them in their order. When failure to comply with an order will constitute a criminal offence this should cause no surprise. . .
Cited – McGillivray v Stephenson 1950
The court upheld a notice requiring a person to abate a nuisance constituting stinking pigs, which said ‘and for that purpose to remove the whole of the pigs from the premises, clear up the effect of their past presence, and cease for the future to . .
Cited – Millard v Wastall 1898
The emission of black smoke from a factory chimney was a nuisance.
Held: When considering an order for the abatement of a nuisance, if the Justices considered it was necessary for things to be done to abate the nuisance, they had normally to . .
Appeal from – Budd v Colchester Borough Council QBD 1996
This was a dog-barking case in which the Court had to consider an abatement notice. It was argued that a notice which did not specify the level of barking which constituted the nuisance and which did not specify precisely what was to be done to . .
Cited by:
Appeal heard – Budd v Colchester Borough Council CA 30-Jan-1997
The applicant sought leave to appeal against a decision confirming a noise abatement notice under the Act. He kept dogs, and neighbours had complained of the noise. He complained that the notice neither specified the nuisance complained of, nor . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Nuisance
Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.145800
