The council appealed against the finding that the complainant’s premises occupied under a tenancy of the council, constituted a statutory nuisance which they had a duty to abate. The claimant’s son was disabled and his condition involved behavioural problems. She said that the kitchen was, in view of his condition too small and dangerous in its layout.
Held: Whether premises are ‘prejudicial to health’ is an objective not a subjective test; there is no contrast with the test for nuisance. The magistrate had been wrong to determine the case in the way he did by relating the respondents’ duties to the particular health requirements of Robert, the son of the the appellant.
Judges:
Pill LJ, Astill J
Citations:
Times 09-Jun-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 440
Links:
Statutes:
Environmental Protection Act 1990 79(1)(a)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Salford City Council v McNally HL 1976
The House considered the interaction of the 1936 and 1957 Acts as to the distinction between the questions of injury to health and fitness for human habitation: ‘It was not a defence to establish that the house, the subject of the complaint, was . .
Cited – London Borough of Southwark v Ince QBD 1989
Savile J: ‘I am not persuaded that because there is now the Control of Pollution Act and there was previously the Noise Abatement Act that therefore lends any support to the construction [that the Public Health Act 1936 did not apply to premises . .
Cited – National Coal Board v Thorne 2-Jan-1976
Complaint was made as to the failure to repair a property, and the duty to abate the resulting nuisance. Watkins J said: ‘Speaking for myself I would adopt the words of Lord Wilberforce so as to state that a nuisance cannot arise if what has taken . .
Cited – Hall v The Manchester Corporation 1915
Lord Parker set out the test which to be applied when considering whether a property was fit for human habitation: ‘I desire to add that if the corporation are minded to make a new order under section 41 dealing with the houses in question, they . .
Cited – Morgan v Liverpool Corporation CA 1927
The tenant claimed that he had been injured when as the upper portion of a window was being opened one of the cords of the window sash broke and the top part of the window slipped down and caught and injured his hand. The plaintiff admitted that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Nuisance, Housing
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79709