An action was brought for for negligence and/or breach of statutory duty under the 1936 Act. The plaintiff alleged that Melford Rural District Council (‘Melford’: the Defendant Council’s predecessor) had failed to inspect with reasonable care the foundations of the house that he was building. However, by the time the plaintiff noticed the defects, Melford had ceased to exist as a result of local government reorganisation. The plaintiff therefore sued the defendant, Babergh District Council (‘Babergh’), on the basis that ‘all property and liabilities vesting in or attaching to’ Melford had been transferred to Babergh by virtue of section 16(3)(a) of the Local Authorities (England)(Property, etc.) Order 1973. The issue in the case was whether ‘liabilities’ should be limited to crystallised liabilities or whether it should also include potential or contingent liabilities.
Held: The general purpose of the Act and the regulations made under it was to ‘ensure that the reorganisation would not affect events which would otherwise have occurred further than is absolutely necessary because of that reorganisation. That the public should be able to look to the new authority precisely in respect of those matters which it could look to the old authority; that the public’s position should be no better or no worse.’ The word ‘liabilities’ should be construed to include ‘contingent or potential liabilities’ : ‘The whole tenor of the order is designed to ensure that the reorganisation should not effect (sic) events which would otherwise have occurred further than is absolutely necessary because of that reorganisation. That the public should be able to look to the new authority precisely in respect of those matters which it could look to the old authority; that the public’s position should be no better or no worse.’
Judges:
Woolf J
Citations:
[1983] 82 LGR 235
Statutes:
Local Government Act 1972, Public Health Act 1936, Local Authorities (England)(Property, etc.) Order 1973
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – William Sindall Plc v Cambridgeshire County Council CA 21-May-1993
Land was bought for development, but the purchaser later discovered a sewage pipe which very substantially limited its development potential. The existence of the pipe had not been disclosed on the sale, being unknown to the seller.
Held: . .
Cited – National Grid Gas Plc, Regina (on the Application of) v The Environment Agency Admn 17-May-2006
The claimant sought a judicial review of the decision to hold them responsible for necessary works of remediation. They were statutory successors to British Gas Corporation.
Held: The legislation clearly attempted to hold the contaminator . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Local Government
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.185667
