Hall v Kingston-upon-Hull City Council Ireland v Birmingham City Council Baker v Birmingham City Council (14 January 1999) High Court, Queen's Bench Division

Miss S Hall, Miss M Ireland and Miss E Baker were tenants of Kingston-upon-Hull City Council and Birmingham City Council and complained that their homes were in a condition which constituted a statutory nuisance under Section 79(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Hall, Baker and Ireland had been informed in writing by Kingston-upon-Hull City Council and Birmingham City Council that all statutory nuisances had to be reported to specified alternative addresses which were not the registered or principal addresses. In accordance with this information, Hall, Baker and Ireland sent notices to those specified addresses in order to bring proceedings under Section 82(6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The magistrates dismissed the notices on the grounds that these had been sent to the wrong address and were therefore invalid. On hearing the appeal by Hall, Ireland and Baker Mr Justice Mitchell said that Section 160(4) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 states that the correct address of a body corporate, its secretary or clerk at which it was to be served with the notice is the registered or principal office address. He also cited Section 160(3)(a) which provides that a notice can be served on the body corporate via its secretary or clerk. However, Section 160(5) states that the person to be served or given the notice can specify an alternative address which he would accept notices. Mr Justice Mitchell said that the Environmental Protection Act 1990 does not name those persons who could specify the alternative address for the purposes of Section 160(5) and there was no reason to limit the category of persons would could specify the alternative address to the secretary or clerk of the body corporate. The intention behind Section 82 was that ordinary people should be able to use it and that it would provide them swift release from a nuisance. Accordingly the judge allowed the appeals of Hall, Baker and Ireland on the ground that the notices had been properly served at a specified alternative address.

(Times Law Reports, 9 February 1999)