Statutory nuisance
Statutory nuisance
Finally, and briefly, in Lowe v. South Somerset D.C. (1997) The Times, 18 November 1997, the Divisional Court held in an action for judicial review that although there were normally two alternative headings under which an abatement notice might be served in respect of an alleged statutory nuisance, i.e. that the action complained of is either a nuisance (in the common law serve) or that it is prejudicial to health, it is not necessary for the notice actually to spell out which of the two is alleged.
In Hollis v. Dudley MBC; Probert v. Dudley MBC (1997) The Times 12 December 1997, the court held that, subject only to the express provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as to prior notice being given to the defendant of the intention of an aggrieved individual to bring proceedings in respect of an alleged statutory nuisance, then if that allegation is upheld the court has no discretion to refuse to award that individual their proper costs. The provisions of s. 82 of the 1990 Act as to costs are mandatory, and the only element of the costs incurred by the aggrieved individual in such a case which may be disallowed are those which the court concludes should not really have been incurred in the first place.
G. Waterson and R. Lee
The law is stated as it is understood to be up to 12 December 1997.
Reference
1Lee, R. (1997),"Valuers do not need a crystal ball", Property Management, Vol. 15 No. 1,pp. 25-31.
