Garry Ball, R (on the application of) v Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council

Garry Ball, R (on the application of) v Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council

The power to vary an abatement notice under section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is necessarily implied from the Act, for the same reasons as the power to withdraw such a notice. The considerations of avoiding undue rigidity, the local authority's discretion not to prosecute, and the promotion of the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Garry Ball; Defendant: Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council; Interested Party: Real Motorsport Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Statutory Nuisance, Abatement Notice, Local Authority Powers, Noise Pollution, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Environmental Law Statutory Nuisance Abatement Notice Local Authority Powers Noise Pollution Judicial Review

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Garry Ball

Claimant

Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council

Defendant

Real Motorsport Ltd

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a local authority has the power to vary an abatement notice issued under section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in respect of a statutory nuisance (noise)
  2. 2 Whether such a power arises by necessary implication from the Act or by section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972

Ratio Decidendi

The power to vary an abatement notice under section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is necessarily implied from the Act, for the same reasons as the power to withdraw such a notice. The considerations of avoiding undue rigidity, the local authority's discretion not to prosecute, and the promotion of the statutory purpose apply equally to variation as to withdrawal. There is no material distinction between the two for these purposes. Therefore, the Defendant had the power to make the Variation and the claim is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim is dismissed.