Dennis Rye Ltd v Sheffield City Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE DILLON,LORD JUSTICE MANN |
| Judgment Date | 30 April 1991 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1991] EWCA Civ J0430-8 |
| Date | 30 April 1991 |
| Docket Number | 91/0437 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[1991] EWCA Civ J0430-8
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM SHEFFIELD COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE HUNT)
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Dillon
Lord Justice Mann
91/0437
MR TONY CRANFIELD, instructed by Messrs Beachcroft Stanleys, London agents for Messrs King & Brook (Chesterfield), appeared for the Appellant (Plaintiff).
MR F.G.BURRELL, instructed by The Solicitor, Sheffield City Council, appeared for the Respondent (Defendant).
I will ask Lord Justice Mann to give the first judgment.
Dennis Rye Limited appeal against an order of His Honour Judge Hunt made on 19th June 1990 whereby he dismissed the appellant's appeal under section 191(1) of the Housing Act 1985 against repair notices served by Sheffield City Council in respect of premises at 48 and 50 Spa Lane, Woodhouse, Sheffield.
The notices were dated 22nd December 1989 and were served under section 189(1) of the Act of 1985. That subsection then provided so far as is material:
"Where the local housing authority are satisfied that a house is unfit for human habitation, they shall serve a repair notice on the person having control of the house, unless they are satisfied that the house is not capable of being rendered so fit at reasonable expense."
The contents of a repair notice were then dealt with in subsection (2) in these terms so far as is material:
"A repair notice under this section shall—
(a) require the person on whom it is served to execute the works specified in the notice…"
I have referred to the legislation with the prefix "then" because provisions have been altered with effect from 1st April 1990 by reason of the Local Government and Housing Act of 1989. Those alterations do not, however, affect the position under notices served before 1st April 1990.
There is no dispute but that numbers 48 and 50 Spa Lane were dwelling houses or that the appellant was the person having control of them. The two notices served on the appellant in that capacity were in materially similar terms and were as follows:
"(2) The Sheffield City Council, having regard to the matters specified in section 604 of the Housing Act 1985 ("the Act"), are satisfied that the dwelling-house is unfit for human habitation.
(3) The Council, having regard to the matters specified in section 206 of the Act, are not satisfied that the dwelling-house cannot be made so fit at reasonable expense.
(4) In the opinion of the Council the works specified in the schedule to this notice will make the dwelling-house fit for human habitation.
(5) Under section 189 of the Act the Council require you to carry out the works and to begin them not later than the TWENTY-SECOND day of JUNE 1990 and to complete them within SIX MONTHS of that date.
The appended schedules contain a detailed specification of works. The appellant appealed against the notices to the County Court under the right of appeal conferred by section 191 of the Act. The notices of appeal were in common form and expressed the grounds of appeal as being: "The notices are unreasonable in that they relate to works other than works of repair." It was inferentially asked that the notices should be varied by the omission of certain works. The works which were alleged to be works other than works of repair are the same in the case of each dwelling house. They are items 2.2 to 2.8 of the respective specifications. Those items provide for the creation of an internal water closet at first floor level. At present each dwelling house has an outside toilet. Those toilets were described by Mr John Swift, who is an Environmental Housing Officer for the City Council, in these terms:
"W.C's in the rear yard. 8 yds and 10 yds respectively from the respective back doors. Condition of toilets poor, leaking perished roofs of concrete decayed doors and door frames."
It was argued before the learned...
To continue reading
Request your trial