Statutory nuisance

Citation

Waterson, G. and Lee, R. (2001), "Statutory nuisance", Property Management, Vol. 19 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/pm.2001.11319bab.008

Statutory nuisance

Statutory nuisance

Oakley v. Birmingham CC (2000) The Times, 30 November 2000

In a not entirely unrelated area of the law, the House of Lords decided (Lords Clyde and Steyne dissenting) that (in the delightful phrase used by the editors of the Times Law Reports) the "geography of [a] house [is] not a danger to health".

In this case, the design of the council house in question was, to say the least, a little unusual: the WC was built to one side of the kitchen and the wash-hand basin was in a separate bathroom to the other side of the kitchen. To quote from the judgement of Lord Slynn, "There was no wash-basin in the lavatory and no room to put one. Anyone using the lavatory who wanted to wash his hands would have to do so in the kitchen sink or go through the kitchen to the bathroom". In proceedings for statutory nuisance, brought by the tenant against his local authority landlord, the Magistrates had been of the opinion that the consequent risk of cross-infection meant that the premises were "in such a state as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance" for the purposes of what is now s. 79 (1) (a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and accordingly ordered that the landlord move the WC into the bathroom, re-site the door of the bathroom, and install an extractor fan into the newly combined bathroom and WC. The Divisional Court had agreed with the Magistrates. The House of Lords, by a majority of 3-2, did not.

In the opinion of Lord Slynn, as he reviewed the history of the legislation from its origins in 1846, the earlier statutes had, according to the decided cases, been concerned with such matters as "the 'filthy or unwholesome condition' of a house, or the collection of noxious matter or a foul or offensive drain or privy … They were", he said, "directed to the presence in the house of some feature in itself prejudicial to health in that it was a source of possible infection or disease or illness, such as dampness, mould, dirt or evil-smelling accumulations or the presence of rats … There was", he said, "in the present case, nothing wrong with the lavatory, nor was any defect in the drain suggested; there was no defect in the wash basin. There was thus nothing in the premises themselves that was prejudicial to health … undesirable though the arrangement was, it was not permissible to give an extended meaning to the words of s. 79 (1) (a). It was for Parliament, the Government or the local authority (rather than the courts) to take steps to remedy the problem".