Mustafa v London Borough of Enfield & Anor [2018] EWHC 3726 (Admin) (06 December 2018)

Mustafa v London Borough of Enfield & Anor [2018] EWHC 3726 (Admin) (06 December 2018)

Satisfactory provision for drainage in the case of a building includes the arrangements for connecting the pipe removing foul water from the building to the appropriate public sewer, and the owner can be required to remedy unsatisfactory provision even if the misconnection occurs outside the curtilage and on land owned by the sewage undertaker.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 3726 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: Mustafa; First Respondent: London Borough of Enfield; Second Respondent: Thames Water Company
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Statutory Appeal by Way of Case Stated / High Court Appeal From Magistrates' Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Statutory Interpretation, Building Act 1984 S.59, Drainage Requirements, Responsibility for Drainage Works, Appeals Against Statutory Notices
Administrative Law Environmental Law Building and Construction Law Statutory Interpretation Building Act 1984 S.59 Drainage Requirements Responsibility for Drainage Works Appeals Against Statutory Notices

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mustafa

Appellant

London Borough of Enfield

First Respondent

Thames Water Company

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Statutory Appeal by Way of Case Stated / High Court Appeal From Magistrates' Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a notice under s.59 of the Building Act 1984 can be served on a building owner where the unsatisfactory drainage connection occurs outside the curtilage and on land owned by the sewage undertaker
  2. 2 Whether satisfactory provision for drainage includes the connection to the appropriate sewer

Ratio Decidendi

Satisfactory provision for drainage in the case of a building includes the arrangements for connecting the pipe removing foul water from the building to the appropriate public sewer, and the owner can be required to remedy unsatisfactory provision even if the misconnection occurs outside the curtilage and on land owned by the sewage undertaker.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The question posed by the Magistrates' Court is answered in the affirmative: it was open to the judge to find unsatisfactory provision for drainage within s.59 of the Building Act 1984 in these circumstances.