Public Health Act 1961–Alleged breaches of building regulations–Informations laid more than six months after alleged offences were committed–Informations out of time–Council’s appeal dismissed
This was an
appeal by way of case stated by East Retford Justices who, on December 16 1975,
held they had no jurisdiction to hear and determine 17 informations preferred
by the appellants, the Bassetlaw District Council, against the respondents, F B
Dyson (Hayton) Ltd, under section 4 (6) of the Public Health Act 1961, alleging
breaches of the Building Regulations in houses built by the respondents in
Retford.
R Sears QC and
R Hunt (instructed by Sharpe, Pritchard & Co, agents for R W N Broadhead,
of Worksop) appeared for the appellants; R D Naish (instructed by Ward Bowie,
agents for Saffman & Co, of Leeds) represented the respondents.
Giving
judgment, LORD WIDGERY said that the basic facts were that the respondents
completed the houses in question in December 1974 and the justices found as a
fact that the appellants must have known that month that the houses were
completed. The houses were inspected by the appellants in May 1975 and the
informations were issued on December 3 1975, just within the six months from
the inspection. The respondents were not seeking to deny the existence of the
alleged defects. What was being said was that the informations were out of time
because the cause of action had arisen before May 1975, ie more than six months
before the informations were laid. For the appellants it was said that the
breaches arose as soon as it appeared that the regulations had not been
complied with and there was no intention to comply. For the respondents it was
said that the breach arose when the defective material was put in or the
defective work done.
One could not
solve such problems by some convenient rule. One had to look at each case. In
the present case all that was known was that the houses had been constructed by
December 1974, and that the appellants must have known that fact. He would
dismiss the appeal on the facts found. There was no justification for the
suggestion that the houses were not completed by December 1974.
PARK and
TALBOT JJ agreed, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.
