Southwark London Borough Council v Simpson
Lord Bingham of Cornhill LCJ, Collins J
Tenant complaining of statutory nuisance prejudicial to health – Hearing of information – Whether magistrates right to have regard to evidence given by surveyor – Whether magistrates right to conclude nuisance was prejudicial to health – Environmental Protection Act 1990, section 79(1)(a) and 79(7) – Appeal allowed
The respondent was the occupier of premises owned by the appellant council at 13 Beresford House, Kingswood Estate, London SE2. On December 17 1997 she preferred a complaint against the council that she was a person aggrieved by the existence of a statutory nuisance, as defined by section 79(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, arising from a structural defect. The nuisance was dampness and mould claimed to be prejudicial to health under section 79(1)(a) and 79(7) of the 1990 Act. At the hearing, the magistrates heard evidence from, inter alia, a chartered surveyor called on behalf of the respondent, who stated that he had no medical knowledge to confirm the claim, but had read various articles in which similar damp problems were said to be prejudicial.
The magistrates found that the property was suffering from severe superficial damp problems, including mould growth and extensive condensation, and, taking into account all the evidence they had heard, concluded that it had been established beyond reasonable doubt that the premises were in such a state as to be prejudicial to health. Accordingly, they fined the appellant £500, ordered the payment of £1,000 compensation and prescribed works be carried out within eight weeks. The council appealed by way of case stated contending that there had been no expert medical evidence proving that the damp problems were prejudicial to health within the meaning of section 79(1)(a) and 79(7). It was submitted that the evidence of the surveyor was not sufficient because he was not a medical expert, and, in any event, he had no relevant experience but merely relied on articles he had read, which he had neither shown nor given details of to the magistrates.
Tenant complaining of statutory nuisance prejudicial to health – Hearing of information – Whether magistrates right to have regard to evidence given by surveyor – Whether magistrates right to conclude nuisance was prejudicial to health – Environmental Protection Act 1990, section 79(1)(a) and 79(7) – Appeal allowed The respondent was the occupier of premises owned by the appellant council at 13 Beresford House, Kingswood Estate, London SE2. On December 17 1997 she preferred a complaint against the council that she was a person aggrieved by the existence of a statutory nuisance, as defined by section 79(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, arising from a structural defect. The nuisance was dampness and mould claimed to be prejudicial to health under section 79(1)(a) and 79(7) of the 1990 Act. At the hearing, the magistrates heard evidence from, inter alia, a chartered surveyor called on behalf of the respondent, who stated that he had no medical knowledge to confirm the claim, but had read various articles in which similar damp problems were said to be prejudicial.
The magistrates found that the property was suffering from severe superficial damp problems, including mould growth and extensive condensation, and, taking into account all the evidence they had heard, concluded that it had been established beyond reasonable doubt that the premises were in such a state as to be prejudicial to health. Accordingly, they fined the appellant £500, ordered the payment of £1,000 compensation and prescribed works be carried out within eight weeks. The council appealed by way of case stated contending that there had been no expert medical evidence proving that the damp problems were prejudicial to health within the meaning of section 79(1)(a) and 79(7). It was submitted that the evidence of the surveyor was not sufficient because he was not a medical expert, and, in any event, he had no relevant experience but merely relied on articles he had read, which he had neither shown nor given details of to the magistrates.
Held The appeal was allowed.
An expert witness did not have to be medically qualified to give evidence about whether a nuisance was “prejudicial to health” within the meaning of section 79(1)(a) and 79(7) of the 1990 Act. However, he was required to have some experience in the relevant field. Accordingly, a chartered surveyor could give evidence as to whether a nuisance was prejudicial to health, but only if he had some relevant experience. The respondent’s surveyor, however, had said that he had no such experience and was relying on articles he had read and, thus, his position was no better than that of a layman. Therefore, the magistrates had erred in allowing the respondent’s surveyor to give hearsay evidence of material that he had read allegedly linking mould growth to health problems and in finding that the premises were prejudicial to health. An appropriate person would have been an environmental housing officer, who would have the relevant experience: Patel v Mehtab (1980) 5 HLR 80, followed.
Arthur Moore (instructed the solicitor to Southwark London Borough Council) appeared for the appellants; the respondent did not appear and was not represented.
Thomas Elliott, barrister
