The council had taken proceedings against a farmer whose production of swill, for feeding to pigs, was emitting a smell which local residents found scarcely tolerable. Rather than suffer the making of an injunction against him, the farmer had undertaken not to cause a public nuisance at his premises. The duration of the undertaking was not limited in time. Thereafter the council took committal proceedings in which the farmer admitted that he had broken the undertaking by the continued emission of smells. The judge duly fined him but then decided to release him from part of his undertaking by limiting its further duration to two years.
Held: Allowing the Council’s appeal, if a judge concluded that a party’s undertaking given to the court and embodied in a final order was inappropriate, it was preferable for the matter to be dealt with by an appeal rather than by the judge himself seeking to release the undertaking.
Judges:
Lord Justice Gage Lord Justice Buxton Lord Justice Lloyd
Citations:
[2006] EWCA Civ 71, Times 10-Mar-2006, [2007] 1 WLR 980
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Mid Suffolk District Council v Clarke QBD 9-Feb-2006
. .
Cited – Kensington Housing Trust v Oliver CA 1997
After the tenant caused flooding of flats underneath her flat. As a result the landlord had obtained an order for possession of it but it had undertaken to the court to offer the tenant specified alternative accommodation at basement or ground floor . .
See Also – Mid Suffolk District Council v Clarke QBD 7-Apr-2005
. .
Cited by:
Valuable guidance – Birch v Birch SC 26-Jul-2017
The parties, on divorcing had a greed, under court order that W should obtain the release of H from his covenants under the mortgage of the family home. She had been unable to do so, and sought that order to be varied to allow postponement of her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Nuisance, Agriculture, Planning, Litigation Practice
Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.239895