Cooper v Board of Works for the Wandsworth Destrict
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 April 1863 |
| Date | 21 April 1863 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 143 E.R. 414
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 32 L. J. C. P. 185; 9 Jur. N. S. 1155; 11 W. R. 646. Applied, Brutton v. St. George's, Hanover Square, Vestry, 1871, L. R. 13 Eq. 345. Distinguished, Cheetham v. Mayor of Manchester, 1875, L. R. 10 C. P. 265. Referred to, London and SouthWestern Railway v. Flower, 1875, 1 C. P. D. 86. Discussed, Smith v. R., 1878, 3 App. Cas. 624. Adopted, Masters v. Pontypool Local Government Board, 1878, 9 Ch. D. 684; St. James and St. John, Clerkenwe, Vestry v. Feary, 1890, 24 Q. B. D. 713. Considered, Attorney-General v. Hooper, [1893] 3 Ch. 483. Distinguished, Robinson v. Sunderland Corporation, [1899] 1 Q. B. 757.
cooper 'V. the board of works for thk wandsworth district. ':*l. : April 21st, 18G3. [S. a 32 L. J. C. P. 185; 9 Jur. N. S. 1155; 11 W. E. 646, Applied, Srwtton v. St. George's, Hanover Square, Vestry, 1871, L. E. 13Eq. 345. Distinguished, Cheetham v. Mayor of Manchester, 1875, L. E. 10 C. P. 265. Referred to, London and South Western Railway v. Flower, 1875, 1 C. P. D. 86. Discussed, Smith v. B., 1878, 3 App. Cas. ,624. Adopted, Masters v. Pontypool Local Government Board, 1878, 9 Ch. D. 684; St. James and St. John, Clerkenwell, Vestry v. Feary, 1890, 24 Q. B. D. 709. Approved, Hopkins v. Smithwick Local Board of Health, 1890, 24 Q. B. D. 713. Considered, Attorney-General v. Hooper, [1893] 3 Ch. 483. Distinguished, Robinson v. Sunderlanci Corporation, [1899] 1 Q. B. 757.] The 76th section of the Metropolis Local Management Act, 18 & 19 Viet. c. 120, impowera the district board to alter or demolish a house, where the builder has neglected to give notice of his intention to build seven days before proceeding to laj or dig the foundation:-Held, that this does not impower them to demolish the building, without first giving the party guilty of the omission an opportunity of;being heard; and that the 211th section, which gives an appeal to the Metropolitan board! of works, does not prevent the builder or owner of the premises from suing them for so doing. 'This was an action for pulling down a house of the plaintiff which was in the course of erection. The defendants justified their act under the 76th section of the Metropolis Local Management Apt, 1855, 18 & 19 Viet. c. 120, which enacts that, "before beginning to lay or dig out the foundation of any new house or building within any such parish or district (a), or to rebuild any house or building therein, and also before making any drain for the purpose of draining [181] directly or indirectly into any (a) Mentioned in Schedules A. and B. to the act. MO,B,{H.g.)182. COOPER V. THE WAJTDSWORTH BOARD OF WORKS 415 sejwer under the jurisdiction of the vestry or board of or for any such parish or district, sqven days' notice in writing shall be given to the vestry or board by the person intending to build or rebuild such house or building or to make such drain; and efery such foundation shall be laid at such level as will permit the drainage of such house or building in compliance with this act, and as the vestry or board shall order; aftd every such drain shall be made in such direction, manner, and form, and of auch materials and workmanship, and with such branches thereto and other connected works and apparatus and water supply as hereinbefore [s. 73] mentioned, and as the vestry or board shall order; and the making of every such drain shall be under the survey Mid control of the vestiy or board ; and the vestry or district board shall make their order in relation to the matters aforesaid, and cause the same to be notified to the person from whom such notice was received, within seven days after the receipt of such notice; and, in default of such notice, or if such house, building, or drain, or branches thereto, or other connected works and apparatus and water supply, be begun, erected, made, or provided in any respect contrary to any order of the vestry or board made and notified as aforesaid, or the provisions of this act, it shall be lawful for the yestry or board to cause such, house or building to be demolished or altered, and to canse such drain or branches thereto, and other connected works and apparatus, and water supply, to be re-laid, amended, or re-made, or, in the event of omission, added, as the case may require, and to recover the expenses thereof from the owner thereof iu the manner hereinafter provided." The cause was tried before Willes, 3., at the sittings iu Middlesex after last Michaelmas Term. It ap-[182]-peared that the plaintiff, a builder, was employed to build a house within the Wandsworth district, and had already reached the second storey, when the defendants, without giving him any notice, sent their surveyor and a number of workmen, at a late hour in the evening, arid razod it to the ground. There was conflicting evidence as to whether or not the plaintiff had given the notice required by the 76th section of the Metropolis Local Management Act, of his intention to build; he alleging that he had, ;uid the officers of the board denying that any such notice had como to their hands : but it was admitted by the plaintiff that he had commenced digging out the foundations within five days of the day on which he alleged he had sent notice. On the part of the plaintiff, it was submitted that the district board of works had no power under the circumstances to demolish his house; and that, assuming they had such power, they had improperly exercised it, by acting without notice to him or giving lim an opportunity of being heard. For the defendants it was insisted, that the 76th section of the statute gave them a disc?etiofi, against the exercise of which there was no appeal, except to the Metro-"politaB. bijard of works under s. 211 (a); and [183] that, inasmuch as they were ' acting ministerially, and not judicially, they were not bound to give any notice. Under the direction of the learned judge, a verdict was entered for the plaintiff, leave being reserved to the defendants to move to enter the verdict for them, or a nonsuit, if the court should be of opinion that the action was not maintainable. A rule nisi having accordingly been obtained, (a) "Any person who deems himself aggrieved by any order of any vestry or district board in relation to the level of any building, or any order or act of any vestry or district board in relation to the construction, repair, alteration, stopping, or filling up, or demolition of any building, sewer, drain, watercloset, privy, ashpit, or cesspool, may, within seven days after notice of any such order to the occupier of the premises affected thereby, or after such act, appeal to the Metropolitan board of works against the same; and all such appeals shall stand referred to the committee appointed by such board for hearing appeals, as herein...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bank Mellat v HM Treasury
...heading. (1) Natural justice at common law 57 The principle upon which Mr Crow relies is well established from cases such as Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works (1863) 14 CB (NS) 180 to R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 and beyond. In his oral sub......
-
Smith v Police Commissioner
...All E.R. 254. (9) Capel v. ChildENR(1832), 2 Cr. & J. 558; 149 E.R. 235. (10) Cooper v. Wandsworth Bd. of WorksENR(1863), 14 C.B.N.s.180; 143 E.R. 414, followed. (11) Daemar v. Hall, [1978] 2 NZLR 594, considered. (12) De Verteuil v. Knaggs, [1918] A.C. 557. (13) Durayappah v. Fernando, [19......
-
[1] Siobahn Nicola Gillespie [2] Citco BVI Ltd Claimants v The Minister of Natural Resources and Labour Defendant
...of this Court. 4. The Claimants will have their costs to be assessed in accordance with Part 65.12 unless otherwise agreed. 1 Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works (1863) 14 CB (NS) 180 approved in Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40; Durayappah v Fernando [1967] 2 AC 337; Wiseman v Bourneman [197......
-
[1] Hon. Shawn K. Richards [2] Hon. Timothy Harris [3] Hon. Eugene A. Hamilton [4] Hon. Mark Brantley Applicants v [1] The Constituency Boundaries Commission [2] His Excellency the Governor General [3] The Prime Minister of St. Christopher and Nevis [4] Attorney General of St Christopher and Nevis Respondents [ECSC]
...SKBHCV 2009/0159 St Kitts and Nevis unreported; Minister of Local Government v South Sydney Council (No 2) [2002] NSWCA 317; Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works (1863) 14 CBNS 180; Ridge v Baldwin [1963] 1 WLR 935; Wiseman v Bourneman [1969] 3 All ER 275; In the Application of Rai Ramrattan ......
-
Table of cases
...Cicippio v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 18 F. Supp. 2d 62 (D.D.C. 1998) ............ 500 Cooper v. Board of Works for Wandsworth District (1863), 143 ER 414 (CP) ............................................................................................................ 276 Corocraft Ltd. v. ......
-
Notes
...Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners, [1979] 1 SCR 311. 13 Cooper v. Board of Works for Wandsworth District (1863), 143 ER 414 at 420 (CP). 14 CUPE v. New Brunswick Liquor Corporation, [1979] 2 SCR 227. 15 Beverley McLachlin, “The Roles of Administrative Tribunals ......
-
Public Participation and Fairness
...justice of the common law will supply the omission of the legislature”: Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works (1863), 14 CB (NS) 180 at 194, 143 ER 414. This certainly still occurs in appropriate circumstances, even though the Supreme Court of Canada has cited this statement as “dated hauteur ......
-
CABINET IMMUNITY IN CANADA: THE LEGAL BLACK HOLE.
...See e.g. Pelletier v Canada (AG), 2005 FCA 118 at para 12, [2005] 3 FCR 317 [Pelletier]. (161) See Cooper v Wandsworth (Board of Works) (1863), 143 ER 414 at 420, 14 CBNS 180 (162) See Fletcher Timber, supra note 102 at 295; Campagnolo, "Common Law", supra note 96 at 73-74. (163) See genera......