The term ‘watercourse’ did not include an estuary or a river. The history of such legislation required that restricted interpretation. Accordingly, a notice requiring abatement of a nuisance served by a Health authority on a water undertaker, was not validly served, where it depended upon the estuary being a watercourse. There had been no obligation to consult with the undertaker before serving the notice. The notice was not invalid for failing to specify how the nuisance should be abated.
Citations:
Gazette 08-Jun-2000, Times 24-Apr-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 96
Links:
Statutes:
Public Health Act 1936 259(1)(a)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed from – Falmouth and Truro Health Authority v South West Water Services Admn 23-Apr-1999
A watercourse for the purpose of the Act was only a limited area of water and could not include a river or an estuary. An authority serving an abatement notice in respect of sewerage discharges, was not under a duty to consult first with the water . .
Cited by:
Appealed to – Falmouth and Truro Health Authority v South West Water Services Admn 23-Apr-1999
A watercourse for the purpose of the Act was only a limited area of water and could not include a river or an estuary. An authority serving an abatement notice in respect of sewerage discharges, was not under a duty to consult first with the water . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Environment, Nuisance
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147129