Beaumont v Herefordshire Council and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE KAY |
| Judgment Date | 18 June 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | [2001] EWCA Civ 1167 |
| Docket Number | B2/2001/0311 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 18 June 2001 |
[2001] EWCA Civ 1167
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE WORCESTER COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Geddes)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Lord Justice Kay
Lord Justice Keene
B2/2001/0311
The Applicant appeared in person.
The Respondents did not appear and were unrepresented.
Monday, 18th June 2001
This is an application for permission to appeal the decision of His Honour Judge Geddes dated 8th January 2001, dismissing a claim for nuisance against the first and second defendants on the basis that, even if the nuisance could be proved, it occurred as a result of a statutory consent which is an absolute defence.
The facts are that the claimant is a riparian land owner who claimed a nuisance in the form of odorous effluent waste in a water course which runs along a short stretch of the boundary of his property. His claim was that nuisance had been caused by the first defendant and that, when they transferred the land to the second defendant, the second defendant adopted that nuisance.
The claimant claimed that the nuisance arose from the discharge of effluent from a small sewerage works which handles the sewage of a small number of houses built on the second defendant's land. The first defendant had been granted a consent dated 15th May 1992 under the Water Resources Act 1991 ("the 1991 Act"), allowing it to discharge biologically treated sewerage effluent into a tributary of the Wye. Certain conditions attached to the manner of discharge. In the judgment the judge suggested that it was not in dispute that those conditions were properly complied with. Consents can be transferred under schedule 22, paragraph 183 of the 1991 Act. Although there is no mention in the judgment of there being such a transfer, almost certainly that is what occurred. The claimant claimed that odour from the effluent was at its worst when there was insufficient water flow in the water coals so that effluent simply stood in stagnant pools.
The proceedings before His Honour Judge Geddes were decided on a preliminary issue of whether, under a consent issued under the 1991 Act, an implied duty arose on the defendants to ensure dilution of the effluent passing into the ditch, either by adding water or waiting to...
To continue reading
Request your trial