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 would do well to consider the following points. In deciding whether a house is unfit for human habitation, reference must necessarily be made to some standard of fitness or unfitness. The fact that the corporation have a certain standard of fitness which they desire to impose on the area subject to their jurisdiction, and that the building in question falls short of that standard will not, in my opinion, necessarily render the house unfit within the meaning of the section. Thus the absence of such air spaces at the front and back as are prescribed by the by-laws in respect of new houses would not, in my opinion, be alone sufficient to justify the corporation in making an order under the section. The standard to be applied seem to be that of the ordinary reasonable man. This test may seem vague, but it will be found quite sufficient except in cases on the borderline, and in such cases the corporation will proceed at their own risk and must expect litigation.’
Judges:
Lord Parker
Citations:
[1915] Law Journal Chancery 732
Cited by:
Cited – Cunningham v Birmingham City Council Admn 6-May-1997
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Nuisance, Housing
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.427200
