Saxonbest Ltd., R (on the application of) v London Borough of Bromley

The court considered the correct construction of paragraph 4(1)(h)(ii)(aa) of the London Borough of Bromley Houses in Multiple Occupation Registration and Control Scheme 2001 in light of the Building Regulations 1985, in particular regulations 19 and 20. The judge held that regulation 19 must be read subject to regulation 20, and that regulation 20 preserves the application of earlier regulations to plans deposited before 11 November 1985 and works carried out in accordance with them. On that construction the exemption in paragraph 4(1)(h)(ii)(aa) did not apply and the scheme therefore covered the property. The appellant had abandoned its second ground (that the property was not a house in multiple occupation within part 11 of the Housing Act). The appeal was dismissed and the claimant ordered to pay costs; permission to appeal was refused.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated against the Crown Court's decision dismissing its appeal from Bromley Magistrates' Court. The magistrates had convicted the claimant of failing to register a property under the London Borough of Bromley's Houses in Multiple Occupation Registration and Control Scheme 2001, contrary to section 348(g) of the Housing Act 1985, and imposed a fine and costs. The Crown Court reduced the fine on sentence appeal but dismissed the conviction appeal. The High Court was asked to determine whether, on a true construction of the scheme and the Building Regulations 1985 (notably regulations 19 and 20), the scheme applied to the property, and whether the property fell within part 11 of the Housing Act. The appellant abandoned the second issue.

The central legal issue was whether the works of conversion, carried out pursuant to plans deposited before 11 November 1985 and certified complete after that date, meant that the requirements relevant to fire safety were "contained in" the Building Regulations 1985 for the purpose of the scheme's exemption. The appellant argued that the combined effect of regulations 19 and 20 was to revoke and immediately re-enact the earlier (1976) regulations within the 1985 Regulations so that the 1976 requirements were to be treated as contained in the 1985 Regulations. The respondent contested that construction, relying on regulation 20's plain wording that the revoked regulations "shall continue to apply" to plans deposited before 11 November 1985.

The court held that regulations 19 and 20 must be read together, with regulation 19 subject to regulation 20, and that regulation 20 plainly preserves the earlier regulations for the limited class of cases covered (plans deposited before 11 November 1985 and work carried out in accordance with such plans). The judge accepted the respondent's submissions that this interpretation avoided an impractical result and matched the evident purpose of the transitional provisions. On that reasoning the exemption in paragraph 4(1)(h)(ii)(aa) did not apply and the scheme covered the property. The appeal was dismissed with costs and permission to appeal was refused for having no prospect of success.

The appeal is dismissed. The court held that regulation 19 of the Building Regulations 1985 must be read subject to regulation 20, and that regulation 20 preserves the application of earlier regulations to plans deposited before 11 November 1985 and work carried out in accordance with them. Accordingly paragraph 4(1)(h)(ii)(aa) of the Bromley Control Scheme did not exempt the property and the scheme applied. Costs were awarded to the respondent and permission to appeal was refused.

The appeal was by way of case stated from the Crown Court sitting at Croydon which on 21 February 2003 had dismissed the claimant's appeal against the conviction by Bromley Magistrates' Court on 29 November 2002 for failure to register under the Bromley Houses in Multiple Occupation Registration and Control Scheme 2001 (contrary to section 348(g) of the Housing Act 1985). The magistrates imposed a fine of £5,000 and costs of £2,500; on appeal in the Crown Court the fine was halved but the conviction appeal failed. The present appeal to the High Court was dismissed and permission to appeal was refused.