Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

Issa and another v Hackney London Borough Council

347 words (1 pages) Case Summary

16th Jul 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

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.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "UK Law"

UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas.

Related Articles