Brown v Magistrates of Bonnyrigg and Lasswade
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 24 January 1936 |
| Date | 24 January 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 19. |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - First Division) |
1ST DIVISION
Lord Carmont.
Public HealthHousing ActsDemolition orderProvision that after sundry procedure following on service of notice on owner of house unfit for habitation local authority may "forthwith" make a demolition orderDemolition order not made until nearly three years after service of noticeReasonable delayHousing (Scotland) Act, 1930 (20 and 21 Geo. V, cap. 40), sec. 16Words.
The Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, enacts, by sec. 16, that a local authority shall serve upon the owner of a dwelling-house unfit for habitation a notice stating a time when the condition of the house will be considered; and that, in the event of no satisfactory undertaking regarding the house being given by the owner, "the authority shall forthwith make a demolition order" requiring that the house shall be demolished within a specified period.
On 10th June 1931 a local authority served upon the owner of dwelling-houses a notice stating that the houses were unfit for habitation, and that a meeting of the authority would be held on 13th July when the owner would be entitled to be heard upon the matter. The owner did not attend the meeting, and no undertaking regarding the houses was given. At the time when the notice was served there were tenants in the houses for whom accommodation had to be provided. Owing to difficulties which occurred in obtaining a site for, and in building, new houses for the tenants, no demolition order was served upon the owner until 14th March 1934. The owner maintained that the order, in view of the delay in issuing it, did not comply with the provisions of sec. 16, and was invalid.
Held that the demolition order was validly made, in respect that sec. 16 did not impose upon the authority a duty of making the order within a specified time, and that the delay was not unreasonable in the circumstances, and had occasioned no prejudice to the owner of the houses.
On 29th November 1934 Miss Joanna Douglas Brown brought an action against the Provost, Magistrates and Councillors of the Burgh of Bonnyrigg and Lasswade, concluding "for reduction of a demolition order dated 14th March 1934 under the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, section 16 (3),1 at the instance of the Provost, Magistrates and Councillors of the Burgh of Bonnyrigg and Lasswade, relating to dwelling-houses, five in number, at Elm Row, Lasswade."
The circumstances of the case, which are fully set forth in the two opinions of the Lord Ordinary (Carmont), were as follows. On 10th June 1931 the defenders, as the local authority, served a notice under section 16 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, upon the pursuer's mother, who was then an owner of the houses in question. The notice stated that the houses were unfit for human habitation, and that a meeting of the local authority would be held on 13th July 1931, at which the matter would be considered and at which the owner would be entitled to be heard. No appearance was made at this meeting on behalf of the owner, nor were any proposals regarding the property at any time submitted by her. At the date of the notice there were five tenants in the houses for whom no alternative accommodation was available.
The local authority proceeded to build new houses, but those first built were required for more urgent cases. In 1932 the authority negotiated for the provision of more houses, but difficulties about a site, bad weather, and labour shortage caused considerable delay in their erection. The demolition order complained of was, in consequence, not served upon the pursuer, who had become sole owner of the property, until 14th March 1934. The pursuer maintained that the demolition order had not been made "forthwith" in conformity with the provisions of section 16, and that it should be reducedThe pursuer pleaded, inter alia:"(1) The defences, being irrelevant, should be repelled. (2) The said pretended demolition order, not being made in compliance with the provisions of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hillingdon London Borough Council v Cutler
...for years - as in the case to which we were referred where there was a three-years interval: ( Brown v. Bonnyrigg Magistrates 1936 Session Cases at page 256). Here it seems to me that the County Court judge was perfectly right in saying that "forthwith" was satisfied. There was nowhere to h......
-
J.n. Roland Deneault & Scott Ltd Lowe, Bingham & Matthews v Yangtzekiang Garment Manufacturing Co Ltd
...action for years - as in the case to which we were referred where there was a three years' interval: Brown v. Bonnyrigg Magistrates (1936 S.C. 258). It seems to me that the judge was perfectly right in saying that the requirement that the orders be made 'forthwith' was satisfied in the pres......
-
Cartwright v Bahamas Princess Hotel
...not having been served ‘forthwith’. 36 Davies, L.J. at p.137 quoted the remarks of Lord Normand in Brown v. Bonnyrigg Magistrates [1936] S.C. 258 at p.265 in which there had been a three year “delay” in serving demolition orders under similar legislation: - “In my opinion, the statutory inj......
-
Coopers & Lybrand Ltd. v. Richter & Associates, [2000] O.T.C. 388 (SupCt)
..."'To act "forthwith" ... seems to mean "reasonably soon in the circumstances"': Brown v. Bonnyrigg Magistrates, [1936] S.C. 258 at p. 262, per Lord Carmont (Lord Ordinary). "'"Forthwith after the threshing" [in s.5 of the Threshers' Lien Act, which de......