The authority had served notice under the Act requiring the plaintiff to convert a pail closet on his premises into a water closet and to connect it to a sewer. He failed to comply, and the authority carried out the work themselves, but did so by carrying out a larger project serving some other houses. In doing so, they used pipes larger than would have been needed by the claimant, thus causing subsidence to his property.
Held: The authority could not rely on his ‘default’ to defeat his claim for damages.
Statutes interfering with common law rights should be strictly construed, and that it was for the authority to establish ‘that the work which they have done . . is strictly work done ‘in default of . . the owner”. The problem for the authority was that the work was not limited to the work the owner would have done to carry out the work for his own house, but ‘comprised much more’.
Judges:
Scrutton J
Citations:
(1916) 86 LJKB 90
Statutes:
Rawtenstall Corporation Act 1907 257
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Hastings Borough Council v Manolete Partners Plc SC 27-Jul-2016
The council appealed against the decision that it is liable to pay compensation under section 106 of the Building Act 1984, for loss to a business on Hastings Pier arising from its closure during 2006 under the council’s emergency powers. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Local Government
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.628555