Williamson, R (On the Application Of) v Caerphilly County Brough Council [2025] EWHC 3312 (Admin) (19 December 2025)

Williamson, R (On the Application Of) v Caerphilly County Brough Council [2025] EWHC 3312 (Admin) (19 December 2025)

The Defendant failed to consider whether recurring cat fouling in the Claimant's garden constituted a deposit prejudicial to health under section 79(1)(e) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, instead focusing on irrelevant factors such as the manner of keeping cats and common law roaming rights. The complaint raised health concerns and was capable of amounting to a statutory nuisance; the Defendant's determination was unlawful and must be redetermined.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 3312 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Richard James Williamson; Defendant: Caerphilly County Borough Council; Interested Party: Suzanne Parsons
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed; challenged determination quashed; complaint to be redetermined by Defendant.
Legal Topics
Statutory Nuisance, Local Authority Duties, Environmental Protection Act 1990, Animal Fouling, Health Risks
Administrative Law Environmental Law Statutory Nuisance Local Authority Duties Environmental Protection Act 1990 Animal Fouling Health Risks

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard James Williamson

Claimant

Caerphilly County Borough Council

Defendant

Suzanne Parsons

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether recurring cat fouling in claimant's garden constitutes a statutory nuisance under section 79(1)(e) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990
  2. 2 Whether the local authority erred by considering the manner of keeping cats and common law roaming rights instead of statutory nuisance
  3. 3 Whether the authority failed to consider health risks and relevant evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant failed to consider whether recurring cat fouling in the Claimant's garden constituted a deposit prejudicial to health under section 79(1)(e) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, instead focusing on irrelevant factors such as the manner of keeping cats and common law roaming rights. The complaint raised health concerns and was capable of amounting to a statutory nuisance; the Defendant's determination was unlawful and must be redetermined.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; challenged determination quashed; complaint to be redetermined by Defendant.

Orders

  • Declaration that Defendant's determination was not a valid discharge of duty under section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990
  • Complaint to be redetermined in accordance with legal principles set out in judgment