The defendant sought legal aid to defend an action to abate a statutory nuisance under the 1936 Act.
Held: Such an action was criminal in nature. The action had been brought under section 99, but the imposition of a penalty under s94 was a criminal sentence. ‘On analysis, the position seem to be that proceedings are initiated by information under section 99, and that the information is then dealt with under section 94(2). It appears plain that the proceedinbgs under section 94(2) are criminal in character. The offence is the wrongdoing which leads to whatever order is in fact made; in this case, putting it generally, allowing premises to be in such a state as to be prejudicial to health.’
 1 WLR 408
Followed – Regina v Newham Justices, ex parte Hunt etc CA 1976
The court asked whether proceedings under s99 were civil or criminal.
Held: ‘the proper interpretation of this section [section 99] leads to the conclusion that the individual can by information invoke section 94’ The offence was under s94 . .
Applied – Herbert v Lambeth London Borough Council QBD 27-Nov-1991
An abatement order had been made against the council under the 1936 Act. The tenant appealed a finding that the magistrates had had no jurisdiction to award compensation under the 1973 Act.
Held: An order under the 1973 Act required a criminal . .
Adopted – Botross v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council QBD 7-Nov-1994
Statutory nuisance proceedings are in their nature criminal proceedings, and compensation may be awarded by the court. . .
Cited – Regina v Liverpool Crown Court, Ex Parte Cooke QBD 3-Apr-1996
Complaint was made against the council for creating a statutory nuisance under the 1990 Act. The tenant sought compensation under the 1973 Act. The council appealed an award of andpound;3,000 compensation.
Held: Compensation should be awarded . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Nuisance, Legal Aid
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.221517