Mustafa v London Borough of Enfield & Anor

Mustafa v London Borough of Enfield & Anor

Satisfactory provision for drainage under s.59 of the Building Act 1984 includes the arrangements for connecting the waste pipe from a building to the sewer system. The owner is liable to remedy unsatisfactory drainage even if the misconnection occurs outside the curtilage and was not caused by the owner or their predecessor.

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
Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Drainage, Statutory Interpretation, Owner Liability, Connection to Public Sewer
Building Law Public Health Law Environmental Law Drainage Statutory Interpretation Owner Liability Connection to Public Sewer

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mustafa

Appellant

London Borough of Enfield

First Respondent

Thames Water Company

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether unsatisfactory provision for drainage exists under s.59 of the Building Act 1984 when foul water is discharged into a surface water drain rather than a foul water sewer, with the connection occurring outside the building's curtilage and on land owned by the sewage undertaker.
  2. 2 Whether the owner is liable for remedying a misconnection not caused by them or their predecessor.

Ratio Decidendi

Satisfactory provision for drainage under s.59 of the Building Act 1984 includes the arrangements for connecting the waste pipe from a building to the sewer system. The owner is liable to remedy unsatisfactory drainage even if the misconnection occurs outside the curtilage and was not caused by the owner or their predecessor.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • It was open to the judge to find that unsatisfactory provision for drainage exists within s.59 of the Building Act 1984 in the circumstances described.
  • The notice served under s.59 is upheld.