The defendants had been convicted of offences involving mistreatment of animals, and debarred from having custody of animals. They were now in breach of that order, and the council sought a civil order allowing it access to their land to remove any animals found.
Held: The court did not have the necessary jurisdiction. It had power to make orders to support actions remedying infringements of statutes where the local authority had the enforcement powers. It could therefore grant an injunction requiring somebody to stop doing something it had already been ordered not to do, but in this case more was sought, the power to trespass on the land and convert goods. The authority still required as a minimum some direct interest in the goods, the animals sought to be recovered. Here there was no express statutory right or interest to support the application, and it failed.
Judges:
Neuberger J
Citations:
Times 01-Oct-2003, Gazette 16-Oct-2003, [2004] Ch 236
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council v Wickes Building Supplies Ltd HL 1992
A public authority is not required as a rule to give a cross undertaking in damages in a law enforcement action. As to the legal status of the statutory instrument in question, the courts could ‘declare it to be invalid’ if satisfied that the . .
Cited – Stoke-On-Trent City Council v B and Q (Retail) Ltd HL 1984
The defendants had been trading on Sundays in breach of s.47 of the Shops Act 1950, which, by s.71(1) imposed on every local authority the duty to enforce within their district the provisions of that Act. Parliament has given local authorities a . .
Cited – Chief Constable of Kent v V 1982
In order to obtain an injunction with respect to property in the possession of a defendant, the right sought to be enforced need not be a proprietary right of the claimant, nor a right for the benefit of the claimant itself. (Slade LJ dissenting) . .
Appealed to – Worcestershire County Council v Tongue, Tongue, and Tongue CA 17-Feb-2004
The defendants had been convicted of animal welfare offences, and banned from keeping animals. The claimant sought to enter the premises to remove animals, but were denied entry.
Held: The court had no power to make an order to allow access . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Worcestershire County Council v Tongue, Tongue, and Tongue CA 17-Feb-2004
The defendants had been convicted of animal welfare offences, and banned from keeping animals. The claimant sought to enter the premises to remove animals, but were denied entry.
Held: The court had no power to make an order to allow access . .
Cited – London Borough of Lambeth and Hyde Southbank Ltd v O’Kane, Helena Housing Ltd CA 28-Jul-2005
In each case the authority had obtained an order for possession of the tenanted properties, but the court had suspended the possession orders. The tenants had therefore now become ‘tolerated trespassers’. They now claimed that they had again become . .
Cited – Guildford Borough Council v Hein CA 27-Jul-2005
The council sought an injunction under the section against the defendant to restrain her from keeping dogs on her premises for animal welfare purposes.
Held: The defendant’s appeal was allowed in part. There had to be shown something more than . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Local Government, Animals
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.186522
