Ms Everett, the tenant of a nineteenth century house in Bristol, suffered from a back injury and as a result had difficulty in negotiating a steep internal staircase at the premises. Ms Everett contended that the staircase gave rise to a statutory nuisance under Section 79(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which provides that premises in such a state as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance can constitute a statutory nuisance. Initially, Bristol City Council appeared to share Ms Everett's view and in December 1994 it served an abatement notice on the landlord pursuant to Section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 requiring the replacement of the existing staircase. However, in December 1996, Bristol City Council informed Ms Everett that the staircase could not be considered a statutory nuisance and that the abatement notice had been incorrectly served. Ms Everett applied for judicial review of Bristol City Council's decision to withdraw the abatement notice. Counsel for Bristol City Council submitted that Section 79(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 did not contemplate physical injury caused by an accident and that the phrase "prejudicial to health" used in the statute related to an identifiable condition, such as an illness, affecting the health of an individual. Therefore it was agreed that premises that are prejudicial to health are to be distinguished from those in such a state that an accident (causing personal injury) is likely to occur. In support of these arguments, reliance was placed on the language used in previous legislation such as the Nuisances Removal Act 1855 and the Public Health Act 1936. The Court decided that the expressions used in these earlier statutes related to the direct effect on human health of filthy or unwholesome premises (and in particular the risk of illness) rather than physical injury. The Court could not see any reason for widening the scope of the current statutory nuisance provisions, based as they are on essentially the same language employed in the original legislation. Accordingly, the Court held that premises in such a state as to increase the risk of an accident, but not the risk of illness, did not constitute a statutory nuisance for the purposes of Section 79(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. (Times Law Reports, 27 May 1998)
Social Media cookies collect information about you sharing information from our website via social media tools, or analytics to understand your browsing between social media tools or our Social Media campaigns and our own websites. We do this to optimise the mix of channels to provide you with our content. Details concerning the tools in use are in our Privacy Notice.