0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Hounslow London Borough Council v Thames Water Utilities Limited, Queens Bench Divisional Court, 23 May 2003

4 June 2003
The issues

Statutory Notice – Abatement Notice – Environmental Protection Act 1990.

The facts

Thames water owned a sewage treatment works at Mogden. The Council served an Abatement Notice under Section 80 of the 1990 Act on the grounds that the smell from the works amounted to a statutory nuisance under Section 79 of the 1990 Act as “arising on industrial, trade or business premises and being prejudicial to health or a nuisance”. The Respondent appealed successfully to the Magistrates Court against the Notice, arguing that the works did not constitute “premises”. The Respondents relied on a decision of the Divisional Court in 1889 – R -v- Parlby – on a similar point in respect of Section 91 of the Public Health Act 1875, which was the predecessor to the 1990 Act. In that case, sewage treatment works were held not to be “premises” for the purposes of the 1875 Act.

The decision

1. Section 79(7) defined “industrial, trade or business premises” and included those used for treatment or process. This was a wide definition, plainly including sewage works on its natural meaning.

2. The only point that the Respondent could rely on was Parlby’s case. Policy considerations leading to the exclusion of sewage treatment works in that case were limited to the terms of the 1875 Act and did not apply in 2003.

3. The definition of statutory nuisance had been changed by the 1990 Act and there was no intention to exclude any particular premises from the Operations Section 79 of the Act.

Appeal of Hounslow London Borough Council allowed.

focus on...

Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.

View

Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.

View

Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.

View

Legal updates

Coronavirus (COVID-19) insurance considerations

With instances of COVID-19 rapidly increasing throughout the UK, many businesses are considering the options available to limit staff and customer exposure to Coronavirus.

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up