Susan Taylor & Anor. v Ione Burton

On an appeal by way of case stated, the High Court may intervene only for excess of jurisdiction or error of law. It may not re-evaluate evidence or substitute its view on a fact-sensitive assessment unless no evidence supported the decision or no reasonable tribunal could have reached it.

Under Environmental Protection Act 1990, s.82(12), compensation is a distinctive statutory entitlement for expenses properly incurred. Analogies with civil or criminal costs rules may assist, but cannot displace the statutory wording. A broad-brush assessment remains permissible, although the magistrates must address the principal submissions, including proportionality and relevant financial circumstances, and give sufficient reasons to show how the sum was reached.

The tenant brought summary proceedings in the North Staffordshire Magistrates’ Court alleging that damp in rented premises constituted a statutory nuisance under s.79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The nuisance was abated during the hearing, leaving compensation for expenses under s.82(12) as the remaining issue.

The magistrates found the owner and managing agent responsible and ordered each to pay £14,539.90. The landlords appealed by way of case stated, challenging liability, the payment of compensation to the tenant’s solicitors, the assessment of quantum and the adequacy of the reasons. The central issues were whether the magistrates had made an error of law or jurisdiction and whether their assessment and explanation of compensation were legally sufficient.

1. Appeal by way of case stated. The appeal was confined to excess of jurisdiction and error of law. The High Court had to proceed on the facts stated by the magistrates and could not reconsider evidential weight or witness credibility. The relevant question was whether there was no evidence supporting the conclusion or whether no reasonable bench could have reached it.
2. Liability. The landlords’ reliance on the defence identified in Jones v Walsall MBC [2003] Env LR 5 (QB) raised an evaluative question: whether they had done all that was reasonable to gain entry and abate the nuisance. The issue depended on all the circumstances. Evidence supported the tenant’s case, including evidence concerning communication, access and the landlords’ ability to enter using a key. The magistrates had jurisdiction to prefer that evidence. No legal or jurisdictional error was shown, and this ground was dismissed.
3. Quantum. The assessment under s.82(12) was a broad-brush and summary exercise, as explained in Taylor v Walsall and District Property and Investment Co Ltd [1998] Env LR 600. Nevertheless, the magistrates had to consider the main issues raised, including proportionality, the non-monetary value of the repairs, the parties’ conduct, challenged categories of expenditure and the landlords’ means. The magistrates’ brief reference to excessive travel and waiting expenses did not show that these matters had been properly considered. The decision was therefore legally insufficient.
4. Analogies with civil and criminal costs provisions could assist, but s.82(12) required an assessment of reasonably sufficient compensation for expenses properly incurred. The statutory context remained controlling. The matter had to be reconsidered without creating an expectation of any particular quantum or of lengthy reasons.
5. The magistrates also erred in directing payment to the tenant’s solicitors rather than to the tenant. Their orders were quashed to that extent and the matter was remitted for a fresh decision on the amount payable to the tenant, by the landlords in such proportions as appeared fair and reasonable.

This was an appeal by way of case stated from orders made by the North Staffordshire Magistrates’ Court on 14 February 2020. The High Court dismissed the challenge to liability but allowed the challenges concerning quantum and the payee, quashed the relevant parts of the orders and remitted the matter to the magistrates.