Greenpeace Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: Admn 10 Oct 2005

Greenpeace asserted that the respondent had failed to make adequate arrangements to protect the common dolphin from unintended mortality from fishing activities as it was required to do under the Regulation. Measures had been proposed but they were criticised as inadequate to prevent many dolphin deaths, and was based on inadequate evidence.
Held: the action failed. The minister had exercised his responsibilities and discretions properly. The decision could not be called irrational. There was a stepwise strategy intended which was noy yet fully formed.

Judges:

Stanley Burnton J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2144 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Sea Fish Conservation Act 1967, Council Regulation EC No. 812/2004

Cited by:

Appeal FromGreenpeace Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 31-Oct-2005
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Environment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231228

Guildford Borough Council v Hein: CA 27 Jul 2005

The council sought an injunction under the section against the defendant to restrain her from keeping dogs on her premises for animal welfare purposes.
Held: The defendant’s appeal was allowed in part. There had to be shown something more than repeated infringements to support an injunction. The authority had to show a deliberate and flagrant flouting of the law. (Clarke LJ dissenting in part)

Judges:

Waller, Clarke LJJ, Sir Martin Nourse

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 979, Times 21-Sep-2005, [2005] BLGR 797

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Local Government Act 1972 222

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedStoke-On-Trent City Council v B and Q (Retail) Ltd HL 1984
The defendants had been trading on Sundays in breach of s.47 of the Shops Act 1950, which, by s.71(1) imposed on every local authority the duty to enforce within their district the provisions of that Act. Parliament has given local authorities a . .
CitedCity of London Corporation v Bovis Construction Ltd CA 18-Apr-1988
An injunction had been granted to restrain Bovis from causing a noise nuisance outside certain hours specified in a notice served by the council under the 1974 Act which created a criminal offence ‘without reasonable excuse’ to contravene the . .
CitedWorcestershire County Council v Tongue and others ChD 6-Aug-2003
The defendants had been convicted of offences involving mistreatment of animals, and debarred from having custody of animals. They were now in breach of that order, and the council sought a civil order allowing it access to their land to remove any . .

Cited by:

CitedBirmingham City Council v Shafi and Another CA 30-Oct-2008
The Council appealed a finding that the court did not have jurisdiction to obtain without notice injunctions to control the behaviour of youths said to be creating a disturbance, including restricting their rights to enter certain parts of the city . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Litigation Practice, Local Government

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.229025

Nash v Birmingham Crown Court: Admn 18 Feb 2005

The defendant who had had 75 cats in her home with consequences that they had been not well looked after was convicted of animal cruelty. She had been ‘given a conditional discharge’, one of the conditions being that she could not thereafter look after more than two cats at any one time.

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 338 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protection of Animals Act 1911

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRoyal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty To Animals v Chester Crown Court Admn 17-May-2006
Defendants had been convicted of maltreatment of horses. The crown court had overturned a permanent ban on keeping horses, substituting a limit of keeping 25 horses with a conditional discharge. The prosecutor now appealed.
Held: The court had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Crime

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.223493

Mirvahedy v Henley and Henley: CA 21 Nov 2001

Horses with no abnormal characteristics were panicked, ran out and collided with a car. The car driver sought damages.
Held: The question was not whether the animals betrayed abnormal characteristics of which the owners should have been aware, but rather, given their lack of abnormality, whether the reaction was one which was characteristic of what might be expected of a normal member of that species in those circumstances. If it was the latter, then the owner was strictly liable.

Judges:

The President Of The Family Division, Lady Justice Hale, And, Lord Justice Keene

Citations:

Times 11-Dec-2001, Gazette 17-Jan-2002, [2001] EWCA Civ 1749, [2002] QB 769, [2002] 2 WLR 566, [2002] PIQR P19

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Animals Act 1971 2(2)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ApprovedCummings v Grainger CA 1977
An untrained Alsatian dog was turned loose in a scrap-yard to deter intruders. The dog seriously injured the plaintiff who had entered the yard.
Held: The requirements of section 2(2) were satisfied but the defendant was entitled to rely upon . .
ApprovedCurtis v Betts CA 1990
The defendant owned a bull mastiff dog. It was known to react fiercely when protecting its territory. The plaintiff, a child, had known the dog since it was a puppy, and approached as the dog was about to be put into a car. The dog bit his face . .
DistinguishedChristopher John Gloster v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police CA 24-Mar-2000
The plaintiff was a police officer. While carrying out his duties he was bitten by a police dog, an Alsatian, which had been trained to be aggressive when working. The claim failed, largely on the ground that on the particular facts the damage was . .
DistinguishedBreeden v Lampard CA 21-Mar-1985
A riding accident occurred at a cubbing meet. The plaintiff’s leg was injured when the defendant’s horse kicked out. A claim was advanced under section 2. This horse, like any horse, was liable to kick out when approached too closely, or too . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromMirvahedy v Henley and another HL 20-Mar-2003
The defendants’ horses escaped from the field, and were involved in an accident with the claimant’s car.
Held: The defendants were liable under section 2(2). To bolt was a characteristic of horses which was normal ‘in the particular . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Personal Injury

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.166929

Webb v Avon and Somerset Constabulary and Another: Admn 20 Dec 2017

The appellants challenged the interpretation of the 1991 Act, and of the 2015 Order, and in particular whether the power of a court under section 4B of the Act to make a contingent destruction order (‘CDO’) in relation to a dog prohibited under the Act including those of the type known as pit bull terriers where the court considers that the dog would not constitute a danger to public safety and other conditions are satisfied.

Judges:

Beatson LJ, Whipple J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 3311 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, Dangerous Dogs Exemption Schemes (England and Wales) Order 2015

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Animals, Crime

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.602599

Worcestershire County Council v Tongue and others: ChD 6 Aug 2003

The defendants had been convicted of offences involving mistreatment of animals, and debarred from having custody of animals. They were now in breach of that order, and the council sought a civil order allowing it access to their land to remove any animals found.
Held: The court did not have the necessary jurisdiction. It had power to make orders to support actions remedying infringements of statutes where the local authority had the enforcement powers. It could therefore grant an injunction requiring somebody to stop doing something it had already been ordered not to do, but in this case more was sought, the power to trespass on the land and convert goods. The authority still required as a minimum some direct interest in the goods, the animals sought to be recovered. Here there was no express statutory right or interest to support the application, and it failed.

Judges:

Neuberger J

Citations:

Times 01-Oct-2003, Gazette 16-Oct-2003, [2004] Ch 236

Statutes:

Local Government Act 1972 222

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedKirklees Metropolitan Borough Council v Wickes Building Supplies Ltd HL 1992
A public authority is not required as a rule to give a cross undertaking in damages in a law enforcement action. As to the legal status of the statutory instrument in question, the courts could ‘declare it to be invalid’ if satisfied that the . .
CitedStoke-On-Trent City Council v B and Q (Retail) Ltd HL 1984
The defendants had been trading on Sundays in breach of s.47 of the Shops Act 1950, which, by s.71(1) imposed on every local authority the duty to enforce within their district the provisions of that Act. Parliament has given local authorities a . .
CitedChief Constable of Kent v V 1982
In order to obtain an injunction with respect to property in the possession of a defendant, the right sought to be enforced need not be a proprietary right of the claimant, nor a right for the benefit of the claimant itself. (Slade LJ dissenting) . .
Appealed toWorcestershire County Council v Tongue, Tongue, and Tongue CA 17-Feb-2004
The defendants had been convicted of animal welfare offences, and banned from keeping animals. The claimant sought to enter the premises to remove animals, but were denied entry.
Held: The court had no power to make an order to allow access . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromWorcestershire County Council v Tongue, Tongue, and Tongue CA 17-Feb-2004
The defendants had been convicted of animal welfare offences, and banned from keeping animals. The claimant sought to enter the premises to remove animals, but were denied entry.
Held: The court had no power to make an order to allow access . .
CitedLondon Borough of Lambeth and Hyde Southbank Ltd v O’Kane, Helena Housing Ltd CA 28-Jul-2005
In each case the authority had obtained an order for possession of the tenanted properties, but the court had suspended the possession orders. The tenants had therefore now become ‘tolerated trespassers’. They now claimed that they had again become . .
CitedGuildford Borough Council v Hein CA 27-Jul-2005
The council sought an injunction under the section against the defendant to restrain her from keeping dogs on her premises for animal welfare purposes.
Held: The defendant’s appeal was allowed in part. There had to be shown something more than . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Animals

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.186522

Commission v Spain (Judgment): ECJ 2 Aug 1993

Europa Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds require Member States to preserve, maintain and re-establish the habitats of the said birds as such, because of their ecological value. The obligations on Member States under those articles exist even before any reduction is observed in the number of birds or any risk of a protected species becoming extinct has materialized.
In implementing Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds, Member States are not authorized to invoke, at their option, grounds of derogation based on taking other interests into account. With respect, more specifically, to the obligation to take special conservation measures for certain species under Article 4 of the directive, such grounds must, in order to be acceptable, correspond to a general interest which is superior to the general interest represented by the ecological objective of the directive. In particular, the interests referred to in Article 2 of the directive, namely economic and recreational requirements, do not enter into consideration, as that provision does not constitute an autonomous derogation from the general system of protection established by the directive.
In choosing the territories which are most suitable for classification as special protection areas pursuant to Article 4(1) of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds, Member States have a certain discretion which is limited by the fact that the classification of those areas is subject to certain ornithological criteria determined by the directive, such as the presence of birds listed in Annex I to the directive, on the one hand, and the designation of a habitat as a wetland area, on the other. However, Member States do not have the same discretion under Article 4(4) of the directive to modify or reduce the extent of such areas.
Where there has been a failure to classify a suitable area, in breach of Article 4, the requirements of Article 4(4) must still be complied with.

Citations:

C-355/90, [1993] ECR I-4221, [1993] EUECJ C-355/90

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

CitedBown v Secretary of State for Transport CA 31-Jul-2003
The appeal concerned the environmental effect of the erection of a bridge being part of a bypass. It was claimed that the area should have been designated as a Special Protection Area for Birds (SPA), and that if so it should be treated as such for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Environment, Animals

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.160604

Warwick District Council v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Others: Admn 2 Oct 2001

The second respondent extended their facilities at their abattoir to include more lairage. It was done without planning permission, and the abattoir was in the Green Belt. After an enquiry following a challenge of an enforcement notice, the inspector found that the damage to the green belt was slight. Removing the facility would not decrease traffic, and would compromise animal welfare. The authority challenged the decision saying that the inspector had not allowed for the possible reduced level of business which would follow the satisfaction of the enforcement notice. Held though the decision was criticised, the inspector had taken account of such issues and the decision could not be set aside.

Judges:

Burton J

Citations:

Gazette 11-Oct-2001

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Agriculture, Animals

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.166538

Sissen, Regina (on the Application of) v Newcastle Upon Tyne Crown Court and Another: Admn 9 Jul 2004

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1905 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 141

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoRegina v Sissen CACD 8-Dec-2000
The fact that some parrots, the breed of which was subject to import controls as endangered species, had been imported into Austria first, did not prevent a defendant in England committing the offence of being involved in their importation by . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Sissen CACD 8-Dec-2000
The fact that some parrots, the breed of which was subject to import controls as endangered species, had been imported into Austria first, did not prevent a defendant in England committing the offence of being involved in their importation by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, Animals

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199836

Regina on the Application of Compassion In World Farming Limited v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: CA 29 Jul 2004

The claimants challenged regulations as to animal welfare, saying that they allowed farmers to use practices which did not protect animal welfare.
Held: It was not unlawful to adopt a policy of not prosecuting farmers for practices which would leave breeder chickens facing chronic hunger. The obligation was to pursue policies which would promote animal well-being, which allowed that the policies might not succeed, given that a balance had to be found. Any order for prosecution could only be in respect of particular circumstances which were not before the court.

Judges:

Lord Justice Judge Lord Justice May Lord Justice Sedley

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1009, Times 09-Aug-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No 1870), Council Directive 98/58/EC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromCompassion in World Farming Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 27-Nov-2003
The Directive sought to provide welfare protection for battery chickens. The applicant complained that the farming techniques which restricted diet in order to encourage fast growth would have been prevented if the respondent had properly . .
See AlsoRegina v Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ex parte Compassion In World Farming Ltd ECJ 19-Mar-1998
Restrictions of export of live animals were unsupportable under the Treaty. The justification for the rules which was that the action of exporting live animals was contrary to public morals, or for the protection of the animals was insufficient.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199743

Wilson v Donaldson: CA 9 Jul 2004

Cattle strayed from a field onto the road. A motorist was injured and claimed damages. The farmer appealed.
Held: the judge had been correct that the farmers should have recognised the risk, and taken simple and inexpensive steps to avoid the risk. The ancient common law immunity for animals was abolished in 1971. ‘. . the defendant is in business as a farmer, having therefore to exercise his mind about the risks inherent in his business and the means of protecting against such risks, whether such protection is to himself, the set-up of his farm or to third parties.’ Appeal dismissed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Potter Lord Justice Rix Mr Justice Munby

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 972

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Animals Act 1971

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Leave to AppealDonaldson v Wilson CA 26-Jan-2004
The owner of cattle sought leave to appeal a finding of negligence in his having failed to maintain the fences on his property, which in turn allowed his cattle to stray into the road and cause an accident in which the claimant was severely injured. . .
CitedSearle v Wallbank HL 1947
There existed an ancient common law immunity in respect of animals straying onto a public highway. An owner or occupier of land adjacent to a highway has no legal obligation at common law to highway users so to keep and maintain his hedges, fences . .

Cited by:

Full AppealDonaldson v Wilson CA 26-Jan-2004
The owner of cattle sought leave to appeal a finding of negligence in his having failed to maintain the fences on his property, which in turn allowed his cattle to stray into the road and cause an accident in which the claimant was severely injured. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Road Traffic

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199635

Donaldson v Wilson: CA 26 Jan 2004

The owner of cattle sought leave to appeal a finding of negligence in his having failed to maintain the fences on his property, which in turn allowed his cattle to stray into the road and cause an accident in which the claimant was severely injured. The judge found that there was a risk that walkers would fail to close any gate, and that the farmer should therefore have installed a self closing gate.
Held: Although the defendant’s appeal had little prospect of success, given the importance of the decision to farmers and insurers, the application for leave to appeal was granted subject to an indemnity to the claimant for his costs.

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 123

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Full AppealWilson v Donaldson CA 9-Jul-2004
Cattle strayed from a field onto the road. A motorist was injured and claimed damages. The farmer appealed.
Held: the judge had been correct that the farmers should have recognised the risk, and taken simple and inexpensive steps to avoid the . .

Cited by:

Leave to AppealWilson v Donaldson CA 9-Jul-2004
Cattle strayed from a field onto the road. A motorist was injured and claimed damages. The farmer appealed.
Held: the judge had been correct that the farmers should have recognised the risk, and taken simple and inexpensive steps to avoid the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Personal Injury

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198195

Adams, Murray, Holman-Baird, Plummer, The Fife Hunt, Campbell Gilmour, the Chairman and Master thereof the Buccleuch Hunt Supports Club and others v Scottish Ministers: OHCS 28 May 2004

Judges:

Lord Justice Clerk and Lord Abernethy And Lord Macfadyen

Citations:

[2004] ScotCS 127, [2004] SC 665

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

CitedHandyside v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Dec-1976
Freedom of Expression is Fundamental to Society
The appellant had published a ‘Little Red Schoolbook’. He was convicted under the 1959 and 1964 Acts on the basis that the book was obscene, it tending to deprave and corrupt its target audience, children. The book claimed that it was intended to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198030

Worcestershire County Council v Tongue, Tongue, and Tongue: CA 17 Feb 2004

The defendants had been convicted of animal welfare offences, and banned from keeping animals. The claimant sought to enter the premises to remove animals, but were denied entry.
Held: The court had no power to make an order to allow access for this purpose:’ truth what the Council is doing is to point to deficiencies in the present criminal law and to ask the court to make an order overcoming those deficiencies.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Chadwick Lord Justice Peter Gibson Sir Martin Nourse

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 140, Gazette 18-Mar-2004, [2004] 2 Ch 36

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protection of Animals Act 1911 1, Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromWorcestershire County Council v Tongue and others ChD 6-Aug-2003
The defendants had been convicted of offences involving mistreatment of animals, and debarred from having custody of animals. They were now in breach of that order, and the council sought a civil order allowing it access to their land to remove any . .
CitedStoke-On-Trent City Council v B and Q (Retail) Ltd HL 1984
The defendants had been trading on Sundays in breach of s.47 of the Shops Act 1950, which, by s.71(1) imposed on every local authority the duty to enforce within their district the provisions of that Act. Parliament has given local authorities a . .
CitedCornwall County Council v Baker Admn 18-Feb-2003
The defendant had been convicted of cruelty to his animals. The prosecutor appealed dismissal of an application for an interim order for protection under the 2000 Act in respect of other animals not the subject of the application.
Held: The . .
CitedSouth Carolina Insurance Co v Assurantie Maatschappij de Zeven Provincien NV HL 1987
There can be little basis for the grant of relief to a landowner providing protection from an action in nuisance if the landowner will not himself remedy the public nuisance. The House considered whether the circumstances gave the court power to . .
CitedBroadmoor Hospital Authority and Another v Robinson CA 20-Dec-1999
Where a body was given statutory duties, it would normally be entitled to orders restraining others from interfering with its performance of those duties. A patient detained under the Act had written a book, and the Hospital had sought to restrain . .
CitedChief Constable of Kent v V 1982
In order to obtain an injunction with respect to property in the possession of a defendant, the right sought to be enforced need not be a proprietary right of the claimant, nor a right for the benefit of the claimant itself. (Slade LJ dissenting) . .
CitedChief Constable of Hampshire v A Ltd CA 1984
The court explained Chief Constable of Kent -v- V: ‘jurisdiction to grant an injunction on the application of the Chief Constable in that case existed only if he could be found to have a sufficient interest in making the application, and they appear . .
CitedChief Constable of Leicestershire v M and Another ChD 1988
The defendant had obtained money by fraud and used it to purchase property, which then increased in value.
Held: The police did not have any right based on the increase in value to found a claim for an injunction to prevent the defendant . .

Cited by:

Appealed toWorcestershire County Council v Tongue and others ChD 6-Aug-2003
The defendants had been convicted of offences involving mistreatment of animals, and debarred from having custody of animals. They were now in breach of that order, and the council sought a civil order allowing it access to their land to remove any . .
CitedBirmingham City Council v Shafi and Another CA 30-Oct-2008
The Council appealed a finding that the court did not have jurisdiction to obtain without notice injunctions to control the behaviour of youths said to be creating a disturbance, including restricting their rights to enter certain parts of the city . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.193581

Compassion in World Farming Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: Admn 27 Nov 2003

The Directive sought to provide welfare protection for battery chickens. The applicant complained that the farming techniques which restricted diet in order to encourage fast growth would have been prevented if the respondent had properly implemented the Directive in its Code under the 1968 Act, and in the 2000 Regulations. They said that the Directive required the respondent to control compliance through criminal sanctions. The respondent had adopted a scheme of only civil enforcement.
Held: The obligations were expressed in a general fashion, which was to be taken to allow the respondent a discretion as to how the objectives could be achieved. The objectives of the Directive were not to be confused with the means of attaining them. The respondent was entitled to conclude that a criminal code might be counter-productive.

Judges:

Newman J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 2850 (Admin), Times 05-Dec-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive 98/58/EC, Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 2, Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000

Citing:

See AlsoRegina v Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ex parte Compassion In World Farming Ltd ECJ 19-Mar-1998
Restrictions of export of live animals were unsupportable under the Treaty. The justification for the rules which was that the action of exporting live animals was contrary to public morals, or for the protection of the animals was insufficient.

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina on the Application of Compassion In World Farming Limited v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimants challenged regulations as to animal welfare, saying that they allowed farmers to use practices which did not protect animal welfare.
Held: It was not unlawful to adopt a policy of not prosecuting farmers for practices which would . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture, European, Animals

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188324

Cornwall County Council v Baker: Admn 18 Feb 2003

The defendant had been convicted of cruelty to his animals. The prosecutor appealed dismissal of an application for an interim order for protection under the 2000 Act in respect of other animals not the subject of the application.
Held: The 2000 Act preserved the meanings used in the 1911 Act, and the section did not extend to animals other than those who had been the subject of the proceedings. In this case the words ‘and for connected purposes’ were insufficient to extend the ambit of the Act.

Judges:

Toulson J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 374 (Admin), [2003] 2 All ER 178

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 2000 2, Protection of Animals Act 1911 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Bates 1952
If a statute is ambiguous, the court may look at the long title to discover the purpose of the Act: ‘In many cases the long title may supply the key to the meaning. The principle, as I understand it, is that where something is doubtful or ambiguous . .

Cited by:

CitedWorcestershire County Council v Tongue, Tongue, and Tongue CA 17-Feb-2004
The defendants had been convicted of animal welfare offences, and banned from keeping animals. The claimant sought to enter the premises to remove animals, but were denied entry.
Held: The court had no power to make an order to allow access . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.184960

Lowery v Walker: HL 9 Nov 1910

A trespasser was injured by the land owner’s savage horse.
Held: If a land-owner knows of but does nothing to stop acts of trespass by the public on his land, there may be an implied license. Decision reversed. In Scottish courts the strictness of the duty of care incumbent on the occupier of premises varied according to the circumstances in which the injured party had entered on the premises, and on the extent of his right, or lack of it, to enter. The extent of right, and consequently the stringency of the duty of care, and the question whether care sufficient in the circumstances had been shown, were questions of fact to be determined with regard to the circumstances of the case

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), the Earl of Halsbury, Lords Atkinson and Shaw

Citations:

[1911] AC 10, [1910] UKHL 1, [1910] UKHL 726, 48 SLR 726

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromLowery v Walker CA 1910
An occupier of land who knows that members of the public are in the habit of going on to his land and does nothing to prevent it, may be deemed to have licensed them to do so. . .

Cited by:

CitedBritish Railways Board v Herrington HL 16-Feb-1972
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 . .
CitedRobert Addie and Sons (Collieries) Ltd v Dumbreck SCS 1928
A boy trespassed on land and was injured on machinery there. The local working-classes resorted to the field regularly ‘(1) as an open space; (2) as a playground; (3) as a means of access to chapel and railway station; and (4) – as regards the less . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Land, Animals

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.182878

Habton Farms (an Unlimited Company) v Nimmo: CA 6 Feb 2003

The first defendant had arranged for the purchase of a racehorse from the claimant, wrongly claiming to be acting as agent for the second defendant. The claimant did not then put forward the horse for sale in subsequent auctions, but then the horse contracted peritonitis and died.
Held: The first defendant was liable for breach of warranty of authority. Since the claimant had decided not to put the horse in the auction because he considered the horse to have been sold already, the damages were not to be reduced by what might have been recovered at auction, because that failure derived from the sale itself.

Judges:

Auld, Clarke, Jonathan Parker, LJJ

Citations:

Times 07-Feb-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 68, [2003] 3 WLR 633, [2004] QB 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Animals, Contract, Damages, Agency

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.178990

Royal Society for The Protection of Birds, Regina (on The Application of) v Natural England: Admn 15 Mar 2019

Judicial review challenging the lawfulness of the grant by Natural England of a licence to conduct a trial into the brood management of hen harriers.

Judges:

Lang DBE J

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 585 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 16(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Animals

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.634778

Regina (Greenpeace Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Another: CA 25 Jul 2002

The applicant sought an order requiring the respondent to check the circumstances behind the issue of a certificate issued by an exporting country as to the compliance of mahogany with the Convention. The Brazilian institute responsible for issuing certificates had suspended their issue, but then had issued them under threat from the local courts. The importer should have known that the Institute was not satisfied that the provenance of the mahogany satisfied the convention.
Held: The importing state had an obligation to check the apparent validity of the certificate issued, but not to check the circumstances behind its issue. The need for commercial certainty required the certificates to be acted upon.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Laws and Lord Justice Dyson

Citations:

Times 26-Aug-2002, Gazette 10-Oct-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1036, [2002] 1 WLR 3304

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 1973, Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997 (SI 1997 No 1372)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Environment, Animals

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174739

Adams and Others v Lord Advocate: IHCS 31 Jul 2002

(Opinion) The applicants challenged the introduction of restrictions of hunting by foxes, arguing that the law would infringe their human rights.
Held: The Act was not infringing. Fox hunting as such was not a private activity protected by the Convention, and the interference with property rights was justified by the balancing interest of preventing cruelty to animals. The discrimination which was necessarily part of the engagement of the applicant’s human rights, was justified.
The complaint that the Act was ultra vires the parliament also failed. It was wrong to import the common law concepts in considering the competence of the Scottish Parliament.

Judges:

Lord Nimmo Smith

Citations:

Times 08-Aug-2002, [2002] ScotCS 344, 2002 SCLR 881, 2003 SLT 366, 2002 GWD 26-879, [2002] UKHRR 1189, 2003 SC 171

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8 14 1st protocol, Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002, Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 (Commencement) Order 2002

Citing:

CitedKlass And Others v Germany ECHR 6-Sep-1978
(Plenary Court) The claimant objected to the disclosure by the police of matters revealed during their investigation, but in this case, it was held, disclosure even after the event ‘might well jeopardise the long-term purpose that originally . .
CitedYoung, James And Webster v The United Kingdom ECHR 18-Oct-1982
Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
ECHR . .
CitedKrone Verlag Gmbh and Co Kg v Austria ECHR 26-Feb-2002
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings; . .
CitedNorris v Ireland ECHR 26-Oct-1988
A homosexual man complained that the criminalisation of homosexual conduct in Ireland violated his article 8 right to respect for his private life, although he accepted that the risk of being prosecuted was remote.
Held: The court accepted . .
CitedPurcell v Ireland ECHR 16-Apr-1991
The applicants were several individuals and two trades unions who complained that a ministerial order made under legislation relating to broadcasting infringed their rights under Article 10 of the Convention.
Held: The Commission rejected the . .
CitedChassagnou and Others v France ECHR 29-Apr-1999
A law permitted local authorities to oblige landowners to transfer hunting rights over private land to approved hunting associations. The landowners could not prevent hunting on their property. Landowners so affected were made members automatically . .
CitedHandyside v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Dec-1976
Freedom of Expression is Fundamental to Society
The appellant had published a ‘Little Red Schoolbook’. He was convicted under the 1959 and 1964 Acts on the basis that the book was obscene, it tending to deprave and corrupt its target audience, children. The book claimed that it was intended to . .

Cited by:

CitedImperial Tobacco Ltd v The Lord Advocate SC 12-Dec-2012
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 . .
CitedLocal Government Byelaws (Wales) Bill 2012 – Reference By The Attorney General for England and Wales SC 21-Nov-2012
Under the 1998 and 2006 Acts, the Welsh Assembly was empowered to pass legislation subject to confirmation by the English Parliament Secretary of State. The Local Government Byelaws (Wales) Bill 2012 was passed by the Assembly and purported to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Human Rights, Animals, Constitutional

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174454

Langton, Allen, Regina (on the Application of) v Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Another: Admn 17 Dec 2001

The claimants were farmers, who had been made subject to orders under the Act. They had accumulated maggot waste on their land. The second defendant accepted that the waste included material which would be high risk under the Directive. The defendant had entered the claimant’s land to execute works required under the notice, and the claimant argued this interfered with their property rights under the Convention. The maggot waste which had been supplied to him had included other animal wastes.
Held: Neither the Act for the Order allowed any provision for an appeal. Was judicial review a sufficient alternative remedy? Some of the significant decisions predated the Human Rights Act, and the actual procedure adopted allowed representations to be made, and for review if necessary. The Act was compliant.

Judges:

Mr Nigel Pleming QC (Sitting As A Deputy High Court Judge

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 1047

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Animal Health Act 1981, Animal By-Products Order 1999, European Convention on Human Rights, Council Directive 90/667/EEC of 27th November 1990.

Citing:

CitedRegina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
CitedMcLellan v Bracknell Forest Borough Council; Reigate Borough Council v Benfield and Another CA 16-Oct-2001
The tenant was issued with a notice to quit for unpaid rent, within the first year, during an ‘introductory tenancy.’ She sought judicial review on the basis that the reduced security of tenure infringed her human rights.
Held: Review was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture, Animals, Human Rights, Judicial Review, Administrative

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167368

Wykeham (Trading as Knightwood Kennels) and Another v The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: Admn 19 Nov 2001

Appeal from refusal of leave to seek judicial review of letter altering arrangements for compensation to quarantine kennels on the relaxation quarantine requirements.

Judges:

Rafferty J

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 979

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Administrative, Animals

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167270

Tridon, Federation departementale des chasseurs de l’Isere, and Federation Rhone-Alpes de protection de la nature (Frapna), section Isere: ECJ 23 Oct 2001

ECJ Wild fauna and flora – Endangered species – Application in the Community of the Washington Convention

Citations:

C-510/99, [2001] EUECJ C-510/99, [2001] ECR I-7777, [2002] All ER (EC) 534, ECLI:EU:C:2001:559, [2002] Env LR D 5, [2003] 1 CMLR 2

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Animals, Environment

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166765

Jippes and others v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij: ECJ 12 Jul 2001

(Judgment) Community law did not recognise the rights of animals as fundamental. The applicant owned animals, which fell to be destroyed as part of a preventive cull to protect against the spread of foot and mouth disease. The animals would not be moved nor mix with other animals. They claimed that the ban on vaccination which left the cull as an only alternative, was made without regard to a principle of promoting the welfare of animals. The protection of animals was neither an objective of the community, nor a principle of law. The directive was not manifestly inappropriate.
ECJ Agriculture – Control of foot-and-mouth disease – Prohibition of vaccination – Principle of proportionality – Taking animal welfare into account
‘the criterion to be applied is not whether the measure adopted by the legislature was the only one or the best one possible but whether it was manifestly inappropriate’

Citations:

Times 19-Jul-2001, [2001] EUECJ C-189/01, C-189/01, [2001] ECR I-5689, ECLI:EU:C:2001:420

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

CitedLumsdon and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Legal Services Board SC 24-Jun-2015
The appellant, barristers and solicitors, challenged the respondent’s approval of alterations to their regulatory arrangements, under Part 3 of Schedule 4 to the 2007 Act. The alterations gave effect to the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture, European, Animals

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162815

Ligue Royale Belge pour la Protection des Oiseaux and Societe d’etudes Ornithologiques AVES v Region Wallonne: ECJ 12 Dec 1996

ECJ 1 Environment – Conservation of wild birds – Directive 79/409 – Implementation by the Member States – Derogations from the prohibition of killing or capturing protected species – Condition – Absence of any other satisfactory solution – Possibility of breeding or reproducing in captivity – Not permissible (Council Directive 79/409, Art. 9(1)(c))
2 Environment – Conservation of wild birds – Directive 79/409 – Implementation by the Member States – Derogations from the prohibition of killing or capturing protected species – Condition – Absence of any other satisfactory solution – Capture of protected species with a view to preventing problems of consanguinity – Permissible – Limits
(Council Directive 79/409, Art. 9(1)(c))
3 Article 9(1)(c) of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds, under which Member States may, on condition that there is no other satisfactory solution, derogate from the prohibition of killing or capturing protected species, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may not, on a decreasing basis and for a limited period, authorize the capture of certain protected species in order to enable bird fanciers to stock their aviaries, where breeding and reproduction of those species in captivity are possible but are not yet practicable on a large scale by reason of the fact that many fanciers would be compelled to alter their installations and change their habits. It is only if it is established that, were it not for the capture of birds in the wild, breeding and reproduction of protected species in captivity could not prosper that this alternative could not be regarded as constituting a satisfactory solution within the meaning of that provision.
4 Article 9(1)(c) of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is authorized, with a view to obviating, in bird breeding for recreational purposes, the problems of consanguinity which would result from too many endogenous crossings, to permit the capture of protected species, which may constitute judicious use within the meaning of that provision, on condition that there is no other satisfactory solution, it being understood that the number of specimens which may be captured must be fixed at the level of what proves to be objectively necessary to provide a solution for those problems, subject always to observance of the maximum limit referred to in that provision.

Judges:

JC Moitinho de Almeida, P

Citations:

[1996] ECR I-6775, C-10/96, [1996] EUECJ C-10/96

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive 79/409 9(1)(c)

Cited by:

CitedSustainable Shetland v The Scottish Ministers and Another (Scotland) SC 9-Feb-2015
Wind Farm Permission Took Proper Account
Sustainable Shetland challenged the grant of permission for a wind farm saying that the respondents had failed properly to take account of their obligations under the Birds Directive, in respect of the whimbrel, a protected migratory bird.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Animals

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161760

Associazione Italiana per il WWF and others C-118/94: ECJ 7 Mar 1996

ECJ (Judgment) 1. Pursuant to the division of judicial functions between national courts and the Court of Justice provided for by Article 177 of the Treaty, the Court gives preliminary rulings where the questions referred concern the interpretation of a provision of Community law without, in principle, having to look into the circumstances in which the national courts were prompted to submit questions and envisage applying the provision of Community law which they have asked the Court to interpret.
The matter would be different only if it were apparent either that the procedure provided for in Article 177 had been misused and was in fact being used to have the Court give a ruling when there was no genuine dispute or that the provision of Community law referred to the Court for interpretation was manifestly incapable of applying.
2. Article 9(1) of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds, which provides for the possibility for the Member States to derogate from the general prohibition on hunting protected species laid down in Articles 5 and 7 of the directive where there is no other satisfactory solution and for one of the reasons listed exhaustively therein, and Article 9(2), which defines the precise formal conditions for such derogations, must be interpreted as authorizing the Member States to grant those derogations only by measures which refer in sufficient detail to the factors mentioned in Article 9(1) and (2).
In a sphere in which the management of the common heritage is entrusted to the Member States in their respective territories, faithful transposition of directives becomes particularly important.

Citations:

[1996] EUECJ C-118/94

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Animals

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161339

Regina v Sissen: CACD 8 Dec 2000

The fact that some parrots, the breed of which was subject to import controls as endangered species, had been imported into Austria first, did not prevent a defendant in England committing the offence of being involved in their importation by eventually receiving them in England. The offence was a continuing one. Council regulations had direct effect in member states without the need for enacting legislation. The English Act referred to such regulations directly.

Citations:

Times 09-Jan-2001, Gazette 01-Feb-2001, [2000] EWCA Crim 67

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Regulation (EEC) No 3626/82 (OJ), Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 170(2)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedSissen, Regina (on the Application of) v Newcastle Upon Tyne Crown Court and Another Admn 9-Jul-2004
. .

Cited by:

See AlsoSissen, Regina (on the Application of) v Newcastle Upon Tyne Crown Court and Another Admn 9-Jul-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Animals, Crime

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.158717

Christopher John Gloster v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police: CA 24 Mar 2000

The plaintiff was a police officer. While carrying out his duties he was bitten by a police dog, an Alsatian, which had been trained to be aggressive when working. The claim failed, largely on the ground that on the particular facts the damage was not caused by the relevant characteristic of the dog.

Judges:

Pill and Hale LJJ

Citations:

(2000) 9 PIQR P114, [2000] EWCA Civ 90

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

PreferredBreeden v Lampard CA 21-Mar-1985
A riding accident occurred at a cubbing meet. The plaintiff’s leg was injured when the defendant’s horse kicked out. A claim was advanced under section 2. This horse, like any horse, was liable to kick out when approached too closely, or too . .

Cited by:

DistinguishedMirvahedy v Henley and Henley CA 21-Nov-2001
Horses with no abnormal characteristics were panicked, ran out and collided with a car. The car driver sought damages.
Held: The question was not whether the animals betrayed abnormal characteristics of which the owners should have been aware, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Animals

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147123

Curtis v Betts: CA 1990

The defendant owned a bull mastiff dog. It was known to react fiercely when protecting its territory. The plaintiff, a child, had known the dog since it was a puppy, and approached as the dog was about to be put into a car. The dog bit his face causing injury.
Held: The owner was strictly liable. Where it was known the dog may react aggressively, it was not necessary for the plaintiff to show that the dog had any abnormal characteristics.

Citations:

[1990] 1 WLR 459, [1990] 1 All ER 769

Statutes:

Animals Act 1971 2(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Dictum appliedCummings v Grainger CA 1977
An untrained Alsatian dog was turned loose in a scrap-yard to deter intruders. The dog seriously injured the plaintiff who had entered the yard.
Held: The requirements of section 2(2) were satisfied but the defendant was entitled to rely upon . .

Cited by:

ApprovedMirvahedy v Henley and Henley CA 21-Nov-2001
Horses with no abnormal characteristics were panicked, ran out and collided with a car. The car driver sought damages.
Held: The question was not whether the animals betrayed abnormal characteristics of which the owners should have been aware, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Personal Injury

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.180026

M Najib and Sons Ltd v Crown Prosecution Service: CACD 26 Apr 2018

The company appealed against its conviction under the 2010 Regulation for failing to provide the required assistance for the taking of samples by an inspector. The company admitted the facts but said that the cost of compliance was too high, and unfairly distributed.
Held:

Judges:

Leggatt LJ, McGowan DBE J, Sir Peter Openshaw

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Crim 909, [2018] WLR(D) 258

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (England) Regulations 2010

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Chalkley, Jeffries CACD 19-Dec-1997
The 1995 Act will not permit the Court of Appeal to allow an appeal where a conviction was safe but there was a substantial procedural unfairness. In order to understand the role of pre-1 January 1996 jurisprudence in applying what is now the . .

Cited by:

See AlsoNajib and Sons Ltd v Crown Prosecution Service CACD 3-Jul-2018
The defendant applied for its costs. It had been convicted for a breach of the Regulations, but the Inspector had not had the power to make the request it had denied.
Held: ‘The present case is one in which the prosecution failed as a matter . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Animals

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.609502

Regina v Knightsbridge Crown Court, Commissioner of Police for Metropolitan Police, Wells Street Magistrates’ Court ex parte Leslie Victor Crabbe: Admn 18 Dec 1996

The appeal challenged a finding that a dog was a pit bull terrier, unregistered, and to be destroyed. A decision had been made not to prosecute the owner. He now challenged the finding that it was of a type to which the Act applied. The appellant had had opportunity to obtain access for an expert, but would not pay the fees. The dog was found to be a pit bull. The appellant appealed, and the dog was examined before it was admitted that no appeal to the Crown Court lay against an order under s5(4).
Held: The fees charged were too high and the Commissioner had failed to take proper account of the appellant’s means. The meaning of subsection 5(4) and 5(5) are not clear. The absence of aright of appeal made it even more important that the dog and owner be given a fair trial.

Judges:

Lord Justice McCowan and Mr Justice Collins

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 380

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 5(4) 5(5)

Crime, Animals, Magistrates

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136928

Langridge, Canterbury City Council v Howletts and Port Lympne Estates: Admn 27 Nov 1996

The company appealed against a prohibition notice with regard to its operation of a zoo. A keeper had been attacked by tigers while they were being fed. He had died. The company appealed the terms of the notices, saying that the Act had to allow for the idiosyncracies of the particular business. The company sought particularly to establish social contact between keepers and their animals. The real issue was whether the company could properly allow an employee to enter the tigers’ enclosure. The code of practice required keepers not to enter the enclosure.
Held: The safety legislation cannot be used to specify what work can be done, only the manner in which it was to be done: ‘although in the ordinary way a dangerous piece of machinery must be securely fenced, there may be circumstances concerned with the particular task that the employer (or his employee) is doing (their work) which make it necessary that the activity, which would by any ordinary standards be regarded as dangerous, may nevertheless have a legitimacy which justifies it but which would otherwise have laid the employer open to proceedings for a breach of his statutory duty.’ and ‘The Act is not seeking to legislate as to what work could or could not be performed, but is properly concerned with the manner of its doing. ‘

Citations:

Times 13-Dec-1996, [1996] EWHC Admin 282

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 2

Citing:

CitedColtness Iron Co v Sharp HL 1938
The court considered the extent of the duty of care owed by an employer to its employees under the Act: (Atkin) ‘In the facts of this case where the dangerous machinery was exposed for only a few minutes as the only means of effecting necessary . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Animals, Licensing

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136830

Lovett v Bussey: Admn 3 Apr 1998

The defendant had blocked up a badger set. He appealed against a finding that he had not used ‘loose soil’. He said that Parliament had not intended to be using the word ‘loose’ in a dictionary definition sense of the word.
Held: ‘Loose soil’, following the four other materials referred to in section 8(5) is properly to be construed ejusdem generis with them. The use of spit sized lumps of clay may not be loose. There was no statutory requirement or implication that they should not become compacted.

Citations:

Times 24-Apr-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 399, [1998] EWHC Admin 398

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Protection of Badgers Act 1992 3 8(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Animals, Crime

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.138520

Commission v United Kingdom (Judgment) Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: ECJ 15 Jul 1982

Europa Failure of a State to fulfil its obligations – Protection of animal health. 1. Although under article 36 of the treaty it is for each of the member states to determine, and, if appropriate, to alter its policy relating to animal health, the effects of health policy on imports from other member states cannot exceed the limits laid down by community law.
2. The second sentence of article 36 is designed to prevent restrictions on trade mentioned in the first sentence of that article from being diverted from their proper purpose and used in such a way as either to create discrimination in respect of goods originating in other member states or indirectly to protect certain national products.
In so far as certain facts suggest that the real aim of health measures adopted by a member state is to block, for commercial and economic reasons, imports from other member states and inasmuch as it cannot be shown that, for reasons of animal health, the only possibility open to the member state concerned was to apply those measures and that they were therefore not more restrictive than was necessary for the intended purpose, the measures in question constitute a disguised restriction within the meaning of the second sentence of article 36.

Citations:

C-40/82, [1982] EUECJ C-40/82, [1984] EUECJ C-40/82

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

European, Animals

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.133385

In re Southern Livestock Producers Ltd: 1964

In the absence of special agreement the agister has no lien upon the livestock as he merely takes care of them and supplies them with food. Pennycuick J referred to the distinction between improvement and repair. An obligation to take care of pigs was held to be no more than maintaining them and insufficient to found a worker’s lien.

Judges:

Pennycuick J

Citations:

[1964] 1 WLR 24

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedYour Response Ltd v Datateam Business Media Ltd CA 14-Mar-2014
The claimant employed the defendant to manage subscription lists for the claimant’s magazines. The claimant came to seek damages, and the defendant for non-payment of its invoices. The court was now asked whether it was possible to assert a common . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Animals

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.559376

Regina v Somerset County Council Ex Parte Fewings and Others: CA 22 Mar 1995

The local authority had accepted the argument that stag hunting was cruel and had banned it from the land it owned in the Quantocks. The ban was challenged.
Held: The ban was unlawful. The decision had been reached on moral, and not on administrative grounds. The purposes it sought to implement were not within the purposes for which the land was held, and so was invalid. As to section 120: ‘At first sight this section has little to do with the present case, since we are not dealing with the acquisition of land but with the management or use of land which the County Council acquired over 70 years ago. But the County Council is a principal council within the statutory definition; we have been referred to no statutory provision or rule of law more closely in point; any other provision, unless more specific, would be bound to require powers to be exercised for the public good; and it seems perhaps reasonable to accept that the purposes for which land may be required are or may often be those to which the land should be applied after acquisition.’ Section 120(1)(b) was the statutory authority for the power of a council to manage its land and accordingly set out the criteria by which the land was to be managed. Sir Thomas Bingham MR emphasised that it was critical to distinguish between the legal position of the private landowner and that of a landowning local authority:- ‘To the famous question asked by the owner of the vineyard (‘Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? St Matthew, chapter 20 verse 15) the modern answer would be clear: ‘Yes, subject to such regulatory and other constraints as the law imposes’ but if the same question were posed by a local authority the answer would be different. It would be: ‘No, it is not lawful for you to do anything save what the law expressly or impliedly authorises. You enjoy no unfettered discretions. There are legal limits to every power you have.’
and ‘The point is often made that unelected, unrepresentative judges have no business to be deciding questions of potentially far reaching social concern which are more properly the preserve of elected representatives at a national or local level….The court has no role whatever as an arbiter between those who condemn hunting as barbaric and cruel and those who support it as a traditional country sport…..This is of course a question on which most people hold views one way or the other. But our personal views are wholly irrelevant to the drier and more technical question which the court is obliged to answer. That is whether the County Council acted lawfully in making the decision it did on the grounds it did.’
Swinton Thomas LJ:- ‘Whereas the provisions of Section 120(1)(b) of the Act of 1972 are entirely apt to a decision to acquire land, they are, in my judgment singularly inapt to decisions taken in relation to management of land, and this causes difficulty in resolving the question that arises on this appeal.’

Judges:

Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Simon Brown LJ

Citations:

Gazette 26-Apr-1995, Times 23-Mar-1995, Independent 22-Mar-1995, [1995] 1 WLR 1037, [1995] EWCA Civ 24, (1995) 7 Admin LR 761, [1995] 3 All ER 20

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Local Government Act 1972 120(1)(b), Open Spaces Act 1906 10, Countryside Act 1968 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Somerset County Council ex parte Fewings and Others QBD 10-Feb-1994
A Local Authority could include ethical considerations in making a decision to ban hunting over land which it owned if the power which it sought to use was in the Act. . .

Cited by:

CitedBath and North East Somerset Council v HM Attorney General, The Treasury Solicitor (Bona Vacantia) ChD 31-Jul-2002
Land was conveyed to the Council’s predecessor on condition that it be left available for use for sports and similar recreations, and left as an open space. It was now sought to develop the land as a home for a football club. The Council sought . .
CitedRegina on the Application of Dart Harbour and Navigation Authority v the Secretary of State for Transport Local Government and the Regions QBD 26-Jun-2003
Captain Wyatt owned land near the harbour and wanted to moor his boat by it. The Harbour authority said he needed a licence. The Harbour authority requested him to move the boat as a danger to navigation. The Captain sought a judicial review of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Land, Animals

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88074

Cummings v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 26 Mar 1999

A dog was in a public place even when the area was fenced off where it could be deemed to be public by virtue of public ownership. Private agreement between neighbours to fence of an area is insufficient.

Citations:

Times 26-Mar-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 171

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 3(1), Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Animals

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79708

Briscoe v Shattock: QBD 12 Oct 1998

A dog could be held to be a dangerous dog under the Act, even if the only danger shown was to other dogs, and not to humans. Being dangerous reflected the dog’s disposition not his acts. No eiusdem generis interpretation with other provisions was appropriate in this case.

Citations:

Times 12-Oct-1998

Statutes:

Dogs Act 1871 2

Animals

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78589

Williams v Richards: CA 1907

A complaint was made to the Swansea Justices, under section 2 of the 1871 Act, in relation to the conduct of a dog which had been seen to kill sheep and lambs. The Justices dismissed the complaint on the basis that no evidence had been adduced before them to show that the dog was dangerous to mankind.
Held: The Court remitted the matter to them to hear and deal with the complaint on its merits. Lord Alverstone CJ said: ‘Having regard to the fact that the previous legislation, namely, the Dogs Act, 1865, shews that the intention was to protect people’s property, I can see no reason why the word ‘dangerous’ in s. 2 of the Act of 1871 should be construed as meaning only ‘dangerous to mankind”

Judges:

Lord Alverstone C

Citations:

[1907] 2 KB 88

Statutes:

Dogs Act 1871

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Animals

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.616609

Applebee v Percy: 1874

Brett J explained the distinction between animals by their nature dangerous, and animals where the particular one was, in these terms: ‘A distinction has always been taken between animals which are by nature fierce and untameable, such as tigers and others ferae naturae, and those which are not in their general nature ferocious. If a man keeps an animal of the former class, and another is injured, the owner of the animal is liable without any evidence of a scienter; but, where the animal belongs to a class which is not habitually ferocious, it is necessary to shew that its owner has notice that it has on former occasions shewn symptoms of a disposition to bite mankind.’

Judges:

Brett J

Citations:

(1874) 9 LR CP 647

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Animals

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.616608

Kingsnorth v Bretton And Another: 27 Apr 1814

A magistrate who convicts an unqualified person of killing game under the stat. B Ann. e. 14, and causes his dog to be brought for the purpose of seizing it, may order the dog to be killed without any formal adjudication of seizure.

Citations:

[1814] EngR 315, (1814) 5 Taunt 415, (1814) 128 ER 750

Links:

Commonlii

Animals, Crime

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.337308

Haigh v West: CA 1893

The court was asked about rights of pasturage granted over a public highway. The neighbouring land owner, and Lord of the Manor, claimed damages from the tenant for trespass in pasturing his sheep on the road. There was no evidence in whom the soil of the road vested.
Held: It was to be presumed that the road vested in the church wardens as trustees or alternatively, and to the extent that was not correct, that they had acquired a title by adverse possession. The highway had originally all been grass but for the 20 years prior to the start of the claim, it had been metalled in the middle with grass at the sides. It was the grass at the sides which was used by the tenants of the church wardens for pasturing sheep.
Lindley LJ said: ‘apart from all presumptions the parish have in our opinion gained a title to these parish lanes by the Statute of Limitations. The vestry have by their tenants occupied and enjoyed the lanes for more than a century and this occupation and enjoyment is that of the church wardens and overseers acting through the vestry. We see no legal difficulty in the acquisition by the church wardens and overseers of a title by the Statute of Limitations, although, of course, the title so acquired must be subject to the public right of way.’

Judges:

Lindley LJ

Citations:

[1893] 2 QB 19

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSmith, Regina (on the Application of) v The Land Registry (Peterborough Office) Admn 13-Feb-2009
The applicant sought judicial review of the cancellation of his application for first registration of land by adverse possession. The application had been rejected because a public right of way existed through it, and the claimant had not shown the . .
CitedSmith, Regina (on The Application of) v Land Registry (Peterborough Office) and Another CA 10-Mar-2010
The appellant had lived in a caravan on the verge of a byway and had been here for more than twelve years. He appealed against rejection of his request for possessory title. He said that there was no support in law for the maxim that adverse . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Animals

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.320864

Coldman v Hill: CA 1918

A bailee of cattle who had without negligence let them escape and be lost.
Held: he was blameless in detinue but negligent in that he had failed to inform the owner of the loss as soon as possible, a duty which the court found to arise out of the contract of agistment. Scrutton LJ said that a bailee must show that the goods were lost without default on his part. D. If the property is stolen, and he does not promptly after discovery of the theft notify the bailor or the police of that fact, the burden lies on him of proving that prompt notification to the bailor or to the police would not have led to the recovery of the goods undamaged. The owner of land on which stock are agisted is the bailee and has possession of the cattle, and must take reasonable and proper care of the stock. A contract of agistment is a contract under which an agister agrees, for payment, to provide grazing for, and to supervise and look after, the owner’s stock on land that the agister owns or occupies.

Judges:

Scrutton LJ

Citations:

120 LT 412, [1919] 1 KB 443, [1918] All ER Rep 438

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHoughland v R R Low (Luxury Coaches) Ltd CA 1962
A passenger’s bag had been placed in one coach that had broken down was intended to be transferred to a second coach. When the second coach arrived at the passenger’s destination the bag was not in the hold.
Held: The duty of care of a bailee . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agency, Animals, Negligence, Torts – Other

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.549238

Willoughby And Others v Horridge: 19 Nov 1852

The lessees of a ferry provided steam-boats for the conveyance of passengers, goods, and cattle from A. to B., and also slips for landing and embark ing, which were (generally) sufficient for the purpose :—Held, that they were liable for an injury sustained by the horse of a passenger, in consequence of the side-rail of the landing slip (of the dangerous state of which they had been forewarned) giving way, although the horse was at the time under the control and management of its owner.

Citations:

[1852] EngR 1026, (1852) 12 CB 742, (1852) 138 ER 1096

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Animals

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.296149

Holliday v Morgan: 2 Nov 1858

A warranty of soundness, oil the sale of a horse, is broken by a malformation, existing from the birth of the horse, which, at the time of the sale, renders the horse less fit for reasonable use. – As an extraordinary convexity of the cornea of the eye, producing shortsightedness, in consequence of which the horse is liable to shy. – Such a defect in the eye is not so patent a defect that a purchaser with express warranty is bound to notice it.

Citations:

[1858] EngR 1066, (1858) 1 El and El 1, (1858) 120 ER 808

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Animals

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.289537

Pearson v Coleman Bros: 1948

A child, visiting the circus, left the tent to relieve herself. She passed the lions’ runway, where she was mauled. She sought damages for personal injury.
Held: The only people invited into that enclosure were those who came through the proper entrance. However, having entered the circus as an invitee, and there being no proper facilities, it was foreseeable that a child would not take heed of the warnings, and for this purpose she was an invitee. The circus was liable in negligence.

Citations:

[1948] 2 All ER 274

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Animals, Negligence

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.190056

Leeds City Council v Spencer: CA 6 May 1999

The defendant appealed against an order refusing to set aside an enforcement notice served by the council for his failure to destroy rats and mice on his land.
Held: A local authority had a statutory duty to collect waste, and could not therefore serve a notice, requiring a landowner to clear his land of rubbish, and to remove rats and mice which had gathered. That duty was its own, and could not be moved onto others.

Citations:

Times 24-May-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1351

Statutes:

Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949, Environmental Protection Act 1990

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Local Government, Animals, Environment

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.146266

South Kesteven District Council v Mackie and Others: CA 20 Oct 1999

Where animals, which would be counted as dangerous wild animals, were used as performing animals through the summer months, but were kept in settled winter quarters, there was still no need for the keeper to obtain a licence for that keeping.

Citations:

Times 20-Oct-1999

Statutes:

Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Animals, Licensing

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.89412

Flack v Hudson and Another: CA 22 Nov 2000

Where a co-keeper of a horse was unaware of the animal’s propensities, she remained able to claim damages from the other keeper who knew of, but did not disclose, the animal’s character. There was nothing in the Act to limit the general rights and duties of a bailor and bailee. The Act created no presumption that the knowledge of each co-keeper of an animal would be the same.

Citations:

Times 22-Nov-2000, Gazette 23-Nov-2000

Statutes:

Animals Act 1971 6(3) 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Animals

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.80595

Normand v Lucas: 1993

A lady had fallen in the street and was sitting on a wall when the appellant appeared, along with a small Jack Russell dog. The lady who had fallen encouraged the dog to sit on her knee whilst she was on the wall. She leaned forward and the dog unexpectedly bit her face. Her husband left the scene to summon help from a relative, along with an ambulance. Other individuals appeared on the scene and at the stage when the injured lady was being put into the ambulance the dog bit someone else.
Held: The Court noted that while there may not have been evidence from which the sheriff could have inferred that the dog was dangerously out of control when it bit the first lady by the stage of the subsequent bite ‘there was material upon which the sheriff could have inferred that there were grounds for reasonable apprehension that the dog would injure someone’.

Citations:

1993 GWD 15-975

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedTierney v Valentine 1994
A Boxer dog had attacked and bitten two children on a swing in a children’s play park. The court found that the dog which was in the charge of the appellant entered the play area. It was not on a lead. It approached the swings and circled round them . .
CitedThomson v Procurator Fiscal, Peterhead HCJ 16-Dec-2009
The defendant appealed against her conviction for having her dog dangerously out of control in a public place. She said there had been insufficient evidence to justify the finding. The dog was said to had attacked and bitten another dog, and then . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Animals, Crime

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.503462

Lewis, Regina (on the Application of) v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council: Admn 20 Dec 2007

The claimant sought registration of an open area as a Commons under the 2006 Act. Until 2002 it had been tenanted by a golf club. The inspector had recommended against registration, saying that the use by the public for lawful pastimes had been for more than twenty years, but that this use had been generally deferential to the tenants, and so had not been as of right’.
Held: To establish a common, the use had to be ‘as of right’ and the use had acknowledged the tenants’ and therefore the land-owners’ rights. The claim for a common failed.

Judges:

Jackson J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 3166 (Admin), [2008] JPL 1156, [2008] ACD 38

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive 79/409/EC of 2nd April 1979, on the Conservation of Wild Birds, Commons Act 2006 15

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromLewis, Regina (on the application of) v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council and Another CA 15-Jan-2009
The claimants sought registration of land as a common, saying that it had been used by the local residents for social activities for many years. The council had licenced the land for use as a golf course for many years.
Held: The residents’ . .
At First InstanceLewis, Regina (on The Application of) v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council and Another SC 3-Mar-2010
The claimants sought to have land belonging to the council registered as a village green to prevent it being developed. They said that it had for more than twenty years been used by the community for various sports. The council replied that it had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, European, Land

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.271202

Searle v Wallbank: HL 1947

There existed an ancient common law immunity in respect of animals straying onto a public highway. An owner or occupier of land adjacent to a highway has no legal obligation at common law to highway users so to keep and maintain his hedges, fences and gates as to prevent animals from straying on to it, and that he is not under any duty as between himself and users of it to take reasonable care to prevent any of his animals, not known to be dangerous, from straying on to it.
Lord du Parcq said that there is ‘an underlying principle of the law of the highway is that all those lawfully using the highway . . must show mutual respect and forbearance.’ He went on to explain the Fardon case: ‘Nevertheless, Lord Atkin’s proposition will be misunderstood if it is not read as subject to two necessary qualifications: first, that where no such special circumstances exist negligence cannot be established merely by proof that a defendant has failed to provide against the possibility that a tame animal of mild disposition will do some dangerous act contrary to its ordinary nature, and, secondly, that even if a defendant’s omission to control or secure an animal is negligent, nothing done by the animal which is contrary to its ordinary nature can be regarded, in the absence of special circumstances, as being directly caused by such negligence.’
Lord Porter was careful to distinguish the difference between animals that stray onto a highway, from which no liability flows, and animals that are brought onto a highway deliberately, when reasonable care must be exercised to control them

Judges:

Lord du Parcq, Lord Porter

Citations:

[1947] AC 341, [1947] 1 All ER 12, (1947) 176 LT 104, (1947) 63 TLR 24, [1947] LJR 258

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ExplainedFardon v Harcourt-Rivington 1932
The court set out the reasonable man test for forseeability: ‘If the possibility of danger emerging is reasonably apparent, then to take no precautions is negligence; but if the possibility of danger emerging is only a mere possibility which would . .

Cited by:

CitedWilson v Donaldson CA 9-Jul-2004
Cattle strayed from a field onto the road. A motorist was injured and claimed damages. The farmer appealed.
Held: the judge had been correct that the farmers should have recognised the risk, and taken simple and inexpensive steps to avoid the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Negligence

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.214658

Tierney v Valentine: 1994

A Boxer dog had attacked and bitten two children on a swing in a children’s play park. The court found that the dog which was in the charge of the appellant entered the play area. It was not on a lead. It approached the swings and circled round them and then started to bark and jump at the two children. One of the children began to scream, whereupon the dog bit that child in the foot. It then bit the other child on the leg and bit the first child again on the leg. This child got off the swing and started to run away. The dog bit her arm. It was at that point that the appellant intervened, caught the dog and put it on a lead’. The sheriff had noted the terms of section 10(3) saying: ‘Having regard to the evidence, I took the view that during the course of the events on (the date of the incident) the dog became dangerously out of control because, as matters developed, there were grounds for reasonable apprehension that it would injure someone, although there were no such grounds at the outset’.
Held: The sherrif’s approach was rejected: ‘The occasion which arose in this case, to which the definition in section 10(3) should be referred, was the occasion of the incident described in the findings. That was a single incident and it was an incident at the beginning of which this dog was found not to be dangerously out of control. Since it was a single incident with no appreciable interval, there was no stage at which it could be said that there were grounds for reasonable apprehension that the dog would injure any person before it was all over and the dog was put on the lead. Accordingly, the essential basis for a finding of guilt on this charge was not present’.

Citations:

1994 SCCR 697

Statutes:

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

Citing:

CitedNormand v Lucas 1993
A lady had fallen in the street and was sitting on a wall when the appellant appeared, along with a small Jack Russell dog. The lady who had fallen encouraged the dog to sit on her knee whilst she was on the wall. She leaned forward and the dog . .

Cited by:

CitedThomson v Procurator Fiscal, Peterhead HCJ 16-Dec-2009
The defendant appealed against her conviction for having her dog dangerously out of control in a public place. She said there had been insufficient evidence to justify the finding. The dog was said to had attacked and bitten another dog, and then . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Animals, Crime

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.503463

Mitchil v Alestree: 1726

In an action upon the case brought against the defendant, for that he did ride an horse into a place called Lincoln’s Inn Fields, (a place much frequented by the King’s subjects, and unapt for such purposes) for the breaking and taming of him, and that the horse was so unruly, that he broke from the defendant, and ran over the plaintiff, and grievously hurt him, to his damages, andC.
Upon not guilty pleaded, and a verdict for the plaintiff, it was moved by Simpson in arrest of judgment, that here is no cause of action: for it appears by the declaration, that the mischief which happened was against the defendant’s will, and so damnum absque injuria; and then not shewn what right the King’s subjects had to walk there; and if a man digs a pit in a common into which one that has no right to come there, falls in, no action lies in such case.
Curia contra, It was the defendant’s fault, to bring a wild horse into such a place where mischief might probably be done, by reason of the concourse of people. Lately, in this Court an action was brought against a butcher, who had made an ox run from his stall and gored the plaintiff; and this was alledged in the declaration to be in default of penning of him.
Wylde said: ‘If a man hath an unruly horse in his stable, and leaves open the stable-door, whereby the horse goes forth and does mischief; an action lies against the master.’
Twisden: ‘If one hath kept a tame fox, which gets loose and grows wild, he that kept him before shall not answer for the damage the fox doth after he hath lost him, and he hath resumed his wild nature.’

Judges:

Twisden, Wylde JJ

Citations:

[1726] EngR 590, (1726) 1 Vent 295, (1726) 86 ER 190 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

CitedWoodland v Essex County Council CA 9-Mar-2012
The claimant had been injured in a swimming pool during a lesson. The lesson was conducted by outside independent contractors. The claimant appealed against a finding that his argument that they had a non-delegable duty of care was bound to fail. . .
CitedFarraj and Another v King’s Healthcare NHS Trust (KCH) and Another CA 13-Nov-2009
The claimant parents each carried a gene making any child they bore liable to suffer a serious condition. On a pregnancy the mother’s blood was sent for testing to the defendants who sent it on to the second defendants. The condition was missed, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Animals

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.379170

Dovaston v Payne: CCP 10 Jan 1795

A plea in bar of an avowry for taking cattle damage-feasant, that the cattle escaped from a public highway into the locus in quo, through the defect of fence, must show that they were passing on the highway when they escaped; it is not sufficient to state that being in the highway they escaped.

Citations:

[1795] EngR 4015, (1795) 2 H Bl 527, (1795) 126 ER 684

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

CitedJones and Lloyd v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 23-Jan-1997
The appellants had been peacefully protesting at Stonehenge. They were among others who refused to leave when ordered to do so under an order made by the police officer in charge declaring it to be a trespassory assembly under the 1986 Act. They . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Torts – Other, Animals

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.356360

Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica Gmbh and Another v Council of European Union etc: ECFI 3 Feb 2000

Where the purpose of European legislation was to protect public health by, in this instance, prohibiting the administration of beta-agonists to farm animals, that purpose was to be given effect even though it might have severe and adverse financial consequences for private individuals and companies.

Citations:

Times 03-Feb-2000, T-125/96

Jurisdiction:

European

Animals, Health

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.78463

The Case of Swans: 1572

A prescription to have all wild swans, which are ferae naturae and not marked, building their nests, breeding, and frequenting within a particular creek, is not good.
All white swans not marked, having gained their natural liberty, and swimming in an open and common river, may be seised to the King’s use by his prerogative.
A swan is a Royal fowl, and whales and sturgeons are Royal fish.
Every one who hath swans within his private waters hath a property in them.
A man may prescribe to have a game of swans within his manor, and may prescribe that his mans may swim within the manor of another.
A swan may be an estray.
Cygnets belong equally to the owner of the cock and the owner of the hen, and shall be divided betwixt them.

Citations:

[1572] EngR 403, (1572-1616) 7 Co Rep 15, (1572) 77 ER 435

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Animals, Constitutional

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.432369

Scamler v Johnson: 1729

Trespass quare clausum fregit, and herbam suam depastur. The defendant pleaded that J. Ramsey, long before the trespass, was seised of an ancient messuage with the appurtenances, and prescribed for common of pasture, in the plaintiff’s close for his cattle, levant and couchant on tbe said messuage, with the appurtenances, and made title to the wife of Ramsey for her life, who bad entred and adhuc seisata existit, and conveyed to himself the said messuage at, the will of the wife, and justified utendo communia praedict’. Whereupon the plaintiff demurred. And Sanders for the plaintiff said, that the prescription is not good, for cattle cannot be levant and couchant on a messuage. Holt for the defendant, that the prescription is good, and a messuage comprehends the curtilage, which may be an acre or more, on which the cattle may be levant and couchant. And per Cur. the prescription is good, for it is not a common appendant but appurtenant, and such commori is usual in the county of Lincoln, and other counties, and that this is maintainable better for cattle levant and couchant than otherwise, 2. It was objected that the life of Frances ia not aver’d, and if she be dead, the defendant her lessee at will hath no title, But non allocatur; for (adhuc seisita existit) is a good averment of her life.

Citations:

[1729] EngR 214, (1729) T Jones 227, (1729) 84 ER 1230 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Agriculture, Land, Animals

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.388162

X v Netherlands: ECHR 1962

As a legitimate aim, a Government may rely upon ‘the protection of public . . health’, which includes the health of animals as well as of humans.

Citations:

(1962) 5 YB 278, 1068/61

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedSuryananda, Regina (on the Application of) v The Welsh Ministers Admn 16-Jul-2007
The claimants, trustees of a Hindu temple, sought judicial review of a decision that a bullock in their temple should be slaughtered having positively reacted to a test for bovine tuberculosis bacterium. They said that the animal posed no threat . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Animals

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.258291

Bates v United Kingdom: ECHR 16 Jan 1996

The claimant sought to challenge the rebuttable presumption as to the breed of a dog enacted in section 5(5) of the Act.
Held: The applicant had been entitled but, although represented, had failed, to call evidence to prove at trial that his dog was not of the breed proscribed by the Act, and that the court had relied on an admission by him that the dog was of the breed proscribed. The section was held to fall within reasonable limits. The complaint was inadmissible.

Citations:

26280/95, Unreported, 16 January 1996

Statutes:

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 5

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedSheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Animals, Crime

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.218814

McHugh v Union Bank of Canada: PC 1913

There was a mortgage of horses, which the mortgagee needed to drive to market if he was to sell them.
Held: If a mortgagee goes on with a sale of property which is unsaleable as it stands, a duty of care may be imposed on him, when taking the necessary steps, first to render the mortgaged property saleable. The mortgagee owed to the mortgagor a duty to take proper care of the horses whilst driving them to market. The duty imposed on the mortgagee was to take care to preserve, not increase, the value of the security.

Judges:

Lord Moulton

Citations:

[1913] AC 299

Cited by:

CitedSilven Properties Limited, Chart Enterprises Incorporated v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc, Vooght, Harris CA 21-Oct-2003
The claimants sought damages from mortgagees who had sold their charged properties as receivers. They said they had failed to sell at a proper value. They asked whether the express appointment in the mortgage of receivers as agents of the mortgagor . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Equity

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.187038

Barnard v Evans: 1925

‘causing unnecessary suffering’ under the Act means doing something which it is not reasonably necessary to do and which is not justified.

Citations:

[1925] 2 KB 794

Statutes:

Protection of Animals Act 1911 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

AppliedRoyal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty To Animals, Regina (on the Application Of) v Shinton Admn 30-Jun-2003
The defendant was licensed to set Larson traps to catch magpies. The traps worked by keeping a magpie as a decoy to attract others. The evidence was that the trapped magpie suffered distress and injury because the trap was so small as not to allow . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185836

Lynch v Nurdin: 1841

The defendant’s servant left his cart and horse on a street where children were playing. A child climbed on the wheel of the cart, other children disturbed the horse, and the child was injured.
Held: The judge had correctly left it to the jury to decide whether the defendant was negligent through his servant. If the servant had been negligent the action was maintainable.

Citations:

(1841) 1 QB 29, (1841) Arn and H 158, (1841) 113 ER 1041, [1841] EngR 52

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

CitedBritish Railways Board v Herrington HL 16-Feb-1972
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 . .
CitedCooke v Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland HL 1909
Lord Atkinson said: ‘The duty the owner of premises owes to the persons to whom he gives permission to enter upon them must . . be measured, by his knowledge, actual or imputed, of the habits, capacities and propensities of those persons.’ and ‘The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Negligence

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.182877

Breeden v Lampard: CA 21 Mar 1985

A riding accident occurred at a cubbing meet. The plaintiff’s leg was injured when the defendant’s horse kicked out. A claim was advanced under section 2. This horse, like any horse, was liable to kick out when approached too closely, or too quickly, from behind, but there was no evidence to suggest that it was anything more than a normal 5-year old horse.
Held: If liability is based on the possession of some abnormal characteristic known to the owner, then there is no sense in imposing liability when the animal is behaving in a perfectly normal way for all animals of that species in those circumstances, even though it would not be normal for those animals to behave in that way in other circumstances, for example, a bitch with pups or a horse kicking out when approached too suddenly, or too closely, from behind. The second limb of requirement (b) is ‘refining what is meant by abnormality, not imposing a head of liability contrary to the main thrust of section 2(2)(b)’.
Oliver LJ said he could not believe Parliament intended to impose liability for what was essentially normal behaviour in all animals of the species, and ‘In relation to a characteristic which is not infrequently, although not invariably, found in domestic animals of a particular species in particular circumstances, so that the exhibition of that characteristic in those circumstances cannot be said to be abnormal in the species, it is still necessary in my judgment to show that the keeper knew of the existence of that characteristic in the particular animal in those particular circumstances. In my judgment it is not sufficient to say that the behaviour complained of is behaviour which, in the particular circumstances, is sufficiently common to put the keeper on notice that because the animal belongs to the relevant species there is a risk that in the particular circumstances it may prove (there having been no previous knowledge on the part of the keeper that the particular animal is prone so to behave) to be one of those animals which does in those circumstances behave in that way.’

Judges:

Oliver and Lloyd LJJ and Sir George Waller

Citations:

21 March 1985 (Unreported)

Statutes:

Animals Act 1971 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

DistinguishedMirvahedy v Henley and Henley CA 21-Nov-2001
Horses with no abnormal characteristics were panicked, ran out and collided with a car. The car driver sought damages.
Held: The question was not whether the animals betrayed abnormal characteristics of which the owners should have been aware, . .
CitedMirvahedy v Henley and another HL 20-Mar-2003
The defendants’ horses escaped from the field, and were involved in an accident with the claimant’s car.
Held: The defendants were liable under section 2(2). To bolt was a characteristic of horses which was normal ‘in the particular . .
PreferredChristopher John Gloster v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police CA 24-Mar-2000
The plaintiff was a police officer. While carrying out his duties he was bitten by a police dog, an Alsatian, which had been trained to be aggressive when working. The claim failed, largely on the ground that on the particular facts the damage was . .
CitedWelsh v Stokes and Another CA 27-Jul-2007
The claimant sued a riding stables after she was badly injured on being thrown from the horse provided. Her claim in negligence failed, but she succeeded under strict liabiilty under the 1971 Act, after the judge relied upon hearsay evidence.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Personal Injury

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.180025

Langton, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Another: Admn 15 Aug 2018

The claimant sought judicial review of the Secretary’s policy of supplementary culling of badgers in areas where there has already been an intensive cull.
Held: Refused.

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 2190 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Badgers Act 1973, Protection of Badgers Act 1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Animals

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621161

Haynes v Harwood: CA 1935

The plaintiff, a policemen saw a horse running loose in the street among children. He ran out, chased it and caught it but was injured.
Held: The horseowner was liable. It was foreseeable that if a horse was let loose in a crowd, somebody, particularly a policeman under a general duty to assist, would attempt to capture it and might be injured in the process. The defendant could not raise a plea of volenti non fit injuria in this case. His action was an errand of mercy, and it was by reason of that activity that he fell within the categories of persons for whom the defendant owed a duty of care.
Greer LJ said: ‘It is not necessary to show that this particular accident and this particular damage were probable; it is sufficient if the accident is of a class that might well be anticipated as one of the reasonable and probable results of a wrongful act’

Judges:

Greer LJ

Citations:

[1935] 1 KB 146

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCommissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Reeves (Joint Administratix of The Estate of Martin Lynch, Deceased) HL 15-Jul-1999
The deceased was a prisoner known to be at risk of committing suicide. Whilst in police custody he hanged himself in his prison cell. The Commissioner accepted that he was in breach of his duty of care to the deceased, but not that that breach was . .
CitedJebson v Ministry of Defence CA 28-Jun-2000
The claimant was a guardsman travelling in the rear of a service lorry. He fell from the tailgate suffering severe injury. He was drunk after a social trip.
Held: Though a person could normally expect to be responsible himself for incidents . .
CitedMitchell and Another v Glasgow City Council HL 18-Feb-2009
(Scotland) The pursuers were the widow and daughter of a tenant of the respondent who had been violently killed by his neighbour. They said that the respondent, knowing of the neighbour’s violent behaviours had a duty of care to the deceased and . .
CitedAlcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police CA 31-May-1991
The defendant policed a football match at which many people died. The plaintiffs, being relatives and friends of the deceased, inter alia suffered nervous shock having seen the events either from within the ground, or from outside or at home on . .
CitedAlcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police QBD 31-Jul-1990
Overcrowding at a football match lead to the deaths of 95 people. The defendant’s employees had charge of safety at the match, and admitted negligence vis-a-vis those who had died and been injured. The plaintiffs sought damages, some of them for . .
CitedWooldridge v Sumner and Another CA 4-Jun-1962
The plaintiff photographer was injured when attending a show jumping competition at the White City Stadium. A horse caught him as it passed.
Held: The defendant’s appeal against the finding of negligence succeeded: ‘a competitor or player . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Animals

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.189966

Cutler v United Dairies: CA 1933

A horse pulling one of the defendant’s vans was seen running loose without a driver. It left the roadway onto private land. The driver caught up and called for help. The plaintiff jumped into the field and was injured trying to restrain the horse. There was evidence that the horse had bolted twice before.
Held: Any negligence of the defendants did not contribute to the accident. The plaintiff’s actions amounted to a novus actus interveniens, and since he must have expected to run a risk of injury, they also allowed the defence of volentia no fit injuria.

Judges:

Scrutton LJ, Slesser LJ

Citations:

[1933] 2 KB 297, [1933] 102 LJKB 663, [1933] LT 436

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCommissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Reeves (Joint Administratix of The Estate of Martin Lynch, Deceased) HL 15-Jul-1999
The deceased was a prisoner known to be at risk of committing suicide. Whilst in police custody he hanged himself in his prison cell. The Commissioner accepted that he was in breach of his duty of care to the deceased, but not that that breach was . .
CitedWooldridge v Sumner and Another CA 4-Jun-1962
The plaintiff photographer was injured when attending a show jumping competition at the White City Stadium. A horse caught him as it passed.
Held: The defendant’s appeal against the finding of negligence succeeded: ‘a competitor or player . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Animals

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.188820

Commission v Netherlands: ECJ 2 Oct 2003

ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Directive 91/676/EEC – Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources – Article 5(4) and (5), paragraphs A(1), (2), (4) and (6) of Annex II and paragraph 1(2) and (3) and paragraph 2 of Annex III – Capacity of storage vessels for livestock manure – Limitation of the land application of fertilisers based on a balance between the foreseeable nitrogen requirements of crops and the nitrogen supply to crops from the soil and from fertilisation – Ensuring that the amount of livestock manure applied to land each year does not exceed a specified amount per hectare – Provisions contained in a code of good agricultural practice and covering periods, conditions and procedures for the land application of fertilisers – Obligation to adopt any additional measures or reinforced actions necessary

Citations:

C-322/00, [2003] EUECJ C-322/00

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 91/676/EEC

Jurisdiction:

European

European, Animals, Environment

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.186872

The Association of Independent Meat Suppliers and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Food Standards Agency: CA 20 Jun 2017

Appeal from refusal of judicial review of the system for imposing controls on slaughterhouses.

Judges:

Jackson, Rafferty, Kitchin LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 431, [2017] WLR(D) 422, [2018] PTSR 1330

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromAssociation of Independent Meat Suppliers and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency Admn 2-Jul-2015
A bull was bought at auction, certified ante-mortem as fit, and slaughtered. On slaughter however it was found to suffer a form of septicemia. The claimant disagreed, but the defendant said there was no appeal from the Official Veterinarian’s . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromAssociation of Independent Meat Suppliers and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency SC 24-Jul-2019
Cleveland Meat Company Limited purchased a bull at Darlington Farmers market. After the animal was slaughtered, the Official Veterinarian (‘OV’) found that the animal was diseased and so declared it unfit for human consumption, and refused to award . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals

Updated: 16 April 2022; Ref: scu.588317

Association of Independent Meat Suppliers and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency: Admn 2 Jul 2015

A bull was bought at auction, certified ante-mortem as fit, and slaughtered. On slaughter however it was found to suffer a form of septicemia. The claimant disagreed, but the defendant said there was no appeal from the Official Veterinarian’s decision.

Judges:

Simon J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 1896 (Admin), [2015] PTSR 1383

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromThe Association of Independent Meat Suppliers and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Food Standards Agency CA 20-Jun-2017
Appeal from refusal of judicial review of the system for imposing controls on slaughterhouses. . .
At first InstanceAssociation of Independent Meat Suppliers and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency SC 24-Jul-2019
Cleveland Meat Company Limited purchased a bull at Darlington Farmers market. After the animal was slaughtered, the Official Veterinarian (‘OV’) found that the animal was diseased and so declared it unfit for human consumption, and refused to award . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals

Updated: 16 April 2022; Ref: scu.549789