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, who had previously been a senior public health inspector. He had inspected the premises and concluded that the premises were injurious to health. A serving environmental health officer for the local authority was also called. He stated that in his view the premises were close to being uninhabitable. He agreed that they were likely to be injurious to health. It was argued that medical evidence must be given only by somebody with medical qualifications.
Held: Environmental health officers had appropriate qualifications and experience to give this sort of evidence. This was not a field in which magistrates were free to use their own experience to substitute evidence of such eperts.
Donaldson LJ, Hodgson J
[1980] 5 HLR 78
Public Health Act 1936
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – London Borough of Southwark v Venette Simpson Admn 3-Nov-1998
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 . .
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.
Housing
Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.185100
