Hussain & Anor v Lancaster City Council

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff are joint owners of a shop and residential property located on a housing estate owned by the Defendant local authority. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant failed to prevent tenants and individuals associated with tenants on the estate from committing criminal acts of harassment, including racial harassment, against them. The harassment involved threats, abuse, property damage, and violent attacks occurring over several years. Despite numerous complaints, meetings, and some prosecutions of perpetrators, the Defendant took limited effective action against the offenders. The Plaintiffs rely on the Defendant’s tenancy agreements and equal opportunities policy, as well as statutory provisions under the Housing Act 1985, to support their claims of negligence and nuisance.

Procedurally, the Plaintiffs’ amended statement of claim was initially struck out by a Master on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action. This decision was reversed by a Deputy Judge in the Queen’s Bench Division. The Defendant appealed against this reversal. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal (Civil Division), which considered the legal issues surrounding the Defendant’s liability for failing to prevent third-party harassment and nuisance on the estate.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether a local authority can be held liable in nuisance or negligence for failing to prevent criminal harassment by tenants or their associates against neighbouring property owners.
2. The scope and nature of landlord liability for nuisances committed by tenants or third parties on the landlord’s estate.
3. Whether the Defendant’s statutory powers and duties under housing and highways legislation give rise to a duty of care in negligence towards the Plaintiffs.
4. The application of the "fair, just and reasonable" test in the context of imposing liability on a local authority for failure to prevent third-party wrongdoing.
5. Whether the Plaintiffs’ claim should be struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Liability for damage caused deliberately by third parties whom the Defendant failed to restrain is generally not imposed except in special circumstances, as established in Smith v. Littlewoods.
• The Defendant’s statutory powers under the Housing Act and other legislation are discretionary, and courts should be cautious in imposing common law duties of care for failure to exercise these powers, following authorities such as Stovin v. Norfolk County Council and X v. Bedfordshire County Council.
• Public policy considerations, including the need for multi-agency cooperation and resource allocation, weigh against imposing liability on the Defendant for failure to prevent harassment and nuisance.
• Landlord liability in nuisance is limited; a landlord is not liable for acts of nuisance by tenants unless the landlord has expressly or impliedly authorised the nuisance, as supported by Smith v. Scott and related cases.
• The tort of nuisance requires interference with the plaintiff’s enjoyment of their land caused by the defendant’s use of their own land; the Plaintiffs’ claims fall outside this scope.

Appellee's Arguments

• A landlord or local authority who knows or ought to know of a nuisance by tenants and fails to take reasonable steps to control or prevent it may be held liable for causing, continuing, or adopting the nuisance.
• The Defendant may be liable for nuisances committed on land for which it is responsible, including common parts of the estate, regardless of whether the nuisance emanates from the tenant’s demised premises.
• A duty of care in negligence arises where the Defendant has knowledge of harmful conduct, has assumed responsibility to prevent it, the claimant relies on the Defendant to act, and the Defendant has effective means of control but fails to act within a reasonable time.
• The Defendant’s powers under tenancy agreements and statutory provisions, including the ability to seek possession and injunctions, support the claim that the Defendant ought to have taken action.
• Recent cases such as Page Motors Ltd v. Epsom and Ewell Borough Council, Northampton BC v. Lovatt, and Chartered Trust plc v. Davies indicate a trend towards broader landlord liability for nuisances on their estates.
• The Plaintiffs rely on the Defendant’s published policies and repeated assurances that action would be taken against harassment, and point to some prior enforcement efforts as evidence of assumed responsibility.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court focused primarily on the claim in nuisance, considering whether the Defendant could be liable for failing to prevent nuisance caused by third parties on its estate. It affirmed the principle that nuisance requires interference with the plaintiff’s enjoyment of land caused by the defendant’s use of their own land. The Court found that the Plaintiffs’ allegations, though serious and involving persistent harassment, did not involve the Defendant’s use of its land in a manner that constitutes nuisance in the technical tortious sense. Consequently, the claim fell outside the scope of the tort of nuisance.

Regarding landlord liability for tenants’ acts, the Court relied heavily on Smith v. Scott, which restricts landlord liability to cases where the landlord has expressly or impliedly authorised the nuisance. The Court found no evidence that the Defendant had adopted or continued the nuisance, distinguishing the present case from authorities such as Page Motors where deliberate continuation of nuisance was established.

On the negligence claim, the Court applied the narrow scope for liability in relation to failure to exercise statutory powers, as established in Stovin v. Norfolk County Council and X v. Bedfordshire County Council. It emphasized that the Defendant’s powers under housing and highways legislation are discretionary and that imposing liability would interfere with statutory policy and resource allocation decisions. The Court highlighted public policy considerations, including the need for multi-agency cooperation in dealing with harassment and crime, and the risk of diverting scarce resources to litigation rather than effective management.

The Court acknowledged the Plaintiffs’ compelling factual allegations but concluded that these did not translate into viable legal causes of action for nuisance or negligence. It also noted that striking out is appropriate only where the claim is clearly unsustainable in law, and found that this was the case here. The Court rejected the Plaintiffs’ argument that the case should proceed to trial on the basis of novel legal questions, emphasizing established legal principles and policy considerations.

Holding and Implications

The Court ALLOWED THE APPEAL and reinstated the order striking out the Plaintiffs’ claim. The direct effect is that the Plaintiffs’ claims for nuisance and negligence against the Defendant local authority were dismissed as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court’s decision reinforces the established legal principles limiting landlord and local authority liability for acts of nuisance and harassment committed by tenants or third parties. It underscores the narrow circumstances in which a duty of care arises from failure to exercise statutory powers, emphasizing the importance of policy considerations and statutory discretion. The decision does not set new precedent but affirms the current legal framework, particularly the distinction between technical nuisance and broader nuisance-like conduct, and the limited scope for imposing liability on public authorities for third-party wrongdoing.