Appellant seeking abatement notice – Justices finding insufficient evidence to establish premises were prejudicial to health and a statutory nuisance – Whether justices erred in failing to consider expert evidence – Appeal allowed
The appellant was a tenant of the respondent authority. She sought an abatement notice, pursuant to section 81 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, contending that her premises were in such a state as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance under section 79 of the 1990 Act. At the hearing the appellant called evidence from two environmental health officers, who concluded that the premises were prejudicial to health. The justices found as fact that the two witnesses were “sufficiently qualified and experienced to be regarded as expert witnesses”; however, in the absence of medical evidence regarding the appellant’s state of health, their evidence could not be accepted. Consequently, the justices found that the appellant had failed to discharge the evidential burden to establish a prima facie case. The appellant sought to quash the justices’ finding. The issues were: (1) had the justices properly applied themselves to the issue of whether there was sufficient evidence to show that the premises were prejudicial to health and a statutory nuisance; and (2) having regard to the evidence of the two expert witnesses, were the justices justified in finding that there was insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
It was not necessary that the environmental health officers had medical qualifications in order to assess whether the premises were prejudicial to health: Southwark London Borough Council v Simpson (1998, unreported) applied. The officers possessed expertise that the justices did not have. As there was no contradictory evidence, and the issue was in fact a matter for expert evidence, the justices should have taken the officers’ evidence into account and accepted it. That evidence was improperly excluded.
Adam Fullwood (instructed by Higgins & Co, of Birkenhead) appeared for the appellant; the respondents did not appear and were not represented.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
