It was not necessary for environmental health officers to possess medical qualifications to express opinion as to whether or not premises were prejudicial to health as defined by section 79(1)(a) of the Act. The council appealed a finding that premises constituted a statutory nuisance.
Held: The parties had exchanged reports from environmental health officers. Their evidence was appropriate as a basis for findings as to a potential threat to health arising from the condition of the premises.
Citations:
[1998] EWHC Admin 1034, (1998) CO/3120/98
Links:
Statutes:
Environmental Protection Act 1990 79(1)(a)
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Abadom CACD 1982
A properly qualified expert is entitled to rely on what might otherwise be considered as hearsay, that is to say findings by other experts in the same field in support of an opinion on any given set of facts. ‘In the context of evidence given by . .
Cited – Patel v Mehtab QBD 1980
The question was whether the premises in question were in such a state as to be prejudicial to health, being injurious, or likely to cause injury, to health. The defects included dampness. Evidence was given by a self-employed public health advisor, . .
Cited by:
Cited – Lisa O’Toole v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council Admn 18-May-1999
The respondent appealed by way of case stated a finding that a house was in the condition of being a statutory nuisance. They said that no evidence had been brought with regard to the health of the occupants or of any potential threat to health.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing
Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.139155
