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

Contingent loss in negligence claims

Contingent loss is relevant to limitation; specifically, the date at which a claimant’s cause of action accrues for the purposes of a claim in the tort of negligence (as many claims against professional advisers are framed).

View

Legal updates

Legal and regulatory monthly update - September 2019

The latest update covering delegated authority, insurance product development, the senior insurance managers regime, data protection, operational control frameworks, Lloyds market, and horizon scanning.

View

Legal updates

Kuoni referred to the CJEU by Supreme Court for clarification - possible impact on breach of contract, vicarious liability and assumption of responsibility claims for sexual abuse and assault

We were hoping to be able to give you some interesting insights following the judgment of X v Kuoni Travel Ltd but that will have to wait for another day.

View

Legal updates

The disappearance of LIBOR

Companies should undertake a comprehensive review and audit to identify those products and legacy contracts that are LIBOR-linked and carry out an in-depth risk assessment of discontinuation. Where possible, companies should look at appointing an individual to oversee the programme.

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