Issa and another v Hackney London Borough Council [1997] 1 All ER 999
Local authority guilty of statutory nuisance; whether tenant has tortious cause of action
Facts
The claimants were the children of council tenants living in defendant owned accommodation. Environmental health officers found the property was severely affected with condensation and mould growth which was seriously detrimental to public health, and, therefore, a statutory nuisance contrary to sections 92(1)(a) and section 99 Public Health Act 1936. The defendant pleaded guilty, was fined and paid compensation to the claimants’ parents. The claimants successfully recovered damages for the exacerbation of asthma they suffered as a result of the defendant’s criminal offence and the defendant appealed.
Issues
The defendant asserted the claimants had no cause of action available in tort because the criminal liability imposed did not give rise to civil liability, and the provisions of the 1936 Act were self-contained and not intended to give rise to any cause of action for civil liability. The claimants contended that the 1936 Act was designed to protect a particular class of person and, therefore, a public right was created. The claimants were particular individuals who had suffered injury as a result of the defendant’s breach of statutory duty and, as such, they should be afforded an individual right of action.
Decision/Outcome
The defendants’ appeal was allowed. The 1936 Act was to be construed as an entirely self-contained code for dealing with the issue of statutory nuisances. Where a statute created specific duties and in addition provided a specific regime for the enforcement of these duties, it could not be interpreted as providing any other means of enforcement and even though the claimants had suffered injury and had no other remedy available, they had no cause of action in tort.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case note accurately summarises the decision in Issa v Hackney LBC [1997] 1 All ER 999. The Court of Appeal’s holding — that breach of the statutory nuisance provisions of the Public Health Act 1936 does not give rise to a private law cause of action in tort for breach of statutory duty — remains good law and is consistent with the broader principle confirmed by the House of Lords in O’Rourke v Camden LBC [1997] 3 All ER 23.
Readers should be aware of two contextual developments. First, the statutory nuisance regime under the Public Health Act 1936 has been largely superseded by Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which now governs statutory nuisance in England and Wales. The 1990 Act similarly provides its own enforcement mechanisms, and courts have not interpreted it as impliedly creating a private law remedy beyond those expressly provided. Second, in practice, tenants in the position of the claimants would now more typically pursue claims under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended by the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018), which imposes a fitness for human habitation obligation and does give rise to a civil cause of action. These statutory developments do not affect the correctness of the case note but provide important context for students considering the modern remedial landscape.
