Birmingham City Council v. Oakley

The House of Lords considered the meaning of "any premises in such a state as to be prejudicial to health" in section 79(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and whether the absence or layout of a wash‑hand basin in relation to a water‑closet could amount to a statutory nuisance. The majority concluded that "state of the premises" requires some feature of the premises themselves which is prejudicial to health (for example filth, damp, defective drains, mould), not merely an inconvenient layout or the absence of a facility whose lack makes unhygienic use more likely. The Court therefore held that the magistrates had erred in treating the layout/absence of a basin as falling within section 79(1)(a).

The majority relied on the legislative history of the public health statutes, previous authorities and the distinction between general public‑health nuisances and regulatory regimes (such as building regulations) that govern facilities; Parliament, not the courts, should impose wide expenditure to remedy mere lack of facilities. Two Lords preferred a broader construction and would have dismissed the appeal, but the appeal was allowed.

Background and facts:

• The respondent (tenant) complained under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 that his council landlord had failed to abate a statutory nuisance at his house. The ground‑floor layout placed the WC separate from the bathroom and there was no wash‑hand basin in the WC; users had to wash hands either in the kitchen sink (where food was prepared) or cross the kitchen to the bathroom. The magistrates found the arrangement prejudicial to health and ordered structural works to move the WC into the bathroom and provide an extractor fan.

Procedural posture:

• The landlord appealed by way of case stated to the Divisional Court, which dismissed the appeal (Simon Brown L.J. and Astill J.) and certified a point of general importance. The landlord then appealed to the House of Lords.

Issues framed:

1. Whether premises in their original state but containing a WC compartment without a wash‑hand basin, with the nearest basin accessible only through or in the kitchen, can be found to constitute a statutory nuisance within section 79(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
2. If so, whether the Council was responsible and whether the nuisance arose from a structural defect.

Court’s reasoning:

• The majority (Lords Slynn, Hoffmann and Millett) read "state of the premises" in the historical context of public‑health nuisance legislation and previous authorities. They concluded the subsection targets features of premises that are themselves injurious to health (eg foul drains, mould, accumulations) rather than mere layout or absence of desirable facilities. The prejudice to health in the present case resulted from occupants' likely failure to wash hands or from crossing food‑preparation areas, not from any inherently insanitary feature of the premises (the WC and plumbing were not defective). The majority therefore allowed the appeal and held the magistrates had given the words an unjustified extension; regulatory remedies (building regulations, housing provisions) were the appropriate means to require basins.
• Two Law Lords (Lords Steyn and Clyde) dissented, preferring a broader construction. They considered that layout or lack of facilities could, depending on circumstances and objective risk, make premises "in such a state as to be prejudicial to health" and that the justices were entitled to find a statutory nuisance in the present facts.

Relief sought and disposition:

• The respondent sought an abatement order under section 82 requiring works to be carried out; the House of Lords allowed the landlord's appeal and set aside the finding that the layout/absence of a washbasin constituted a statutory nuisance under section 79(1)(a).

Wider context:

• The Court noted the practical consequences (many older houses lacking basins, public‑expenditure implications) and observed that where Parliament intended to require particular facilities it had done so in other statutes or building regulations. The majority emphasised constitutional and policy reasons for leaving such broad remedial decisions to Parliament or elected bodies.

Appeal allowed. The majority held that, for the purposes of section 79(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the "state of the premises" requires some feature of the premises itself that is injurious or likely to injure health (for example filth, defective drains, damp, mould), and does not extend to a mere layout or the absence of a facility (such as a nearby wash‑hand basin) which makes unhygienic use more likely. Because there was no defect in the WC, drains or other feature of the premises themselves, the magistrates' order could not be supported under section 79(1)(a).

Complaint heard and determined by local magistrates' court (found statutory nuisance and ordered works). Appeal by way of case stated to the Divisional Court (Simon Brown L.J. and Astill J.), which dismissed the appeal and certified a point of public importance. Further appeal to the House of Lords ([2000] UKHL 59) in which the appeal was allowed.