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 for the period from the date of the notice until the date of the hearing. Where however the proceedings were delayed for more than six months from the date of the notice, the period was limited to the last six months before issue. Leggatt LJ ‘The power to make a compensation order under section 35 of the 1973 Act is of course not peculiar to statutory nuisance. So the power, and the monetary limit to which it is subject, were not themselves tailored to the requirements of statutory nuisance. It also seems unlikely that the Legislature paid regard specifically to the period in respect of which compensation would be payable. By section 35 the court may make a compensation order ‘for any personal injury, loss or damage resulting from’ the offence. The offence is of allowing a statutory nuisance to exist at the complainants’ premises at the date of the hearing. . . . I see no warrant for construing section 82 (or section 35) so as to entitle the court to take account of the whole period for which the nuisance is alleged to have existed. That is not the subject of the complaint, which therefore gives no notice to the person responsible of the length of the period for which the nuisance is alleged to have existed.’
Judges:
Leggatt LJ, Sir Iain Glidewell
Citations:
Times 22-Apr-1996, [1996] 4 All ER 589
Statutes:
Environmental Protection Act 1990 82(6), Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 35
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – 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 Inner London Crown Court ex parte Bentham QBD 1989
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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Davenport v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council CA 17-Mar-1995
The court was concerned with the refusal of the magistrates to make a compensation order after a plea of guilty to a statutory nuisance. The magistrates had also refused to award costs of the adjourned hearing at which compensation had been sought. . .
Cited – Northern Ireland Trailers Ltd v Preston County Borough 1972
It was argued that proceedings brought under s94 by information not complaint were a nullity.
Held: The argument failed. A failure to comply with an abatement notice was a criminal offence, but proceedings could also be brought by complaint . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited by:
Cited – Issa (Suing By her Next Friend and Father Issa) and Issa (Suing By her Next Friend and Father Issa) v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Hackney CA 19-Nov-1996
A Local Authority found guilty of a statutory nuisance is not thereby liable for a civil damages suit. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Environment, Nuisance
Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.87199