Watkins v Aged Merchant Seamen's Homes

Standing under section 82(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is determined when the complaint is made. It is a question of fact and degree, assessed by reference to the complaint and its context. Actual occupation will ordinarily make the occupier a person aggrieved, whether lawful or unlawful. A bona fide dispute about occupation need not be resolved by the magistrates’ court. Standing is not lost through later eviction. A mere busybody or abusive complainant may be excluded.

The appellant occupied an almshouse flat and complained to Sunderland Magistrates’ Court that its condition constituted a statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The magistrates dismissed the complaint at a preliminary stage, holding that she lacked standing because a possession order had required her to leave before the hearing.

The appeal by case stated concerned whether a complainant must have an interest in, or a right to occupy, the premises to be a person aggrieved under section 82(1).

1. Appeal allowed. The magistrates’ decision was set aside and the matter was remitted to a differently constituted magistrates’ court.
2. Standing under section 82(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is assessed when the complaint is made. The court must examine the nature of the complaint and its factual and statutory context. Standing established at that point is not lost through subsequent developments.
3. Whether a complainant is a person aggrieved is a question of fact and degree. Actual occupation will ordinarily suffice, whether or not lawful, because the occupier may face prejudice to health from the alleged nuisance.
4. The conclusion is not automatic. An occupier may be a mere busybody where the grievance is not genuine, or the complaint is plainly tactical or abusive. A person who comes to defective premises without permission will probably fall within that category, subject to the facts.
5. Where the legality of occupation is bona fide disputed when the complaint is made, the complainant will likely have standing. The magistrates should not resolve that dispute merely to determine standing where it belongs to the county court.
6. Eviction does not defeat an accrued complaint. Proceedings may remain relevant for later occupiers or the public, and section 82(12) confirms that proceedings can survive abatement before the hearing for compensation purposes. Bringing the complaint gives the complainant no better right to occupy.
7. The narrow approach associated with ex parte Sidebotham was inappropriate in this statutory context. Birmingham District Council v McMahon was distinguished as fact-specific.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal by case stated allowed. The decision of Sunderland Magistrates’ Court dated 11 December 2017 was set aside and the matter was remitted to a differently constituted magistrates’ court.