- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Caerphilly County Borough Council v Williamson, R (on the application of)
Factual and Procedural Background
The Respondent complained to the Appellant that neighbouring cats repeatedly entered his front garden and left faeces, creating alleged health risks for him and his child. The Appellant investigated, including by conducting a site visit, but determined on 11 November 2024 that there was no statutory nuisance. [1][2]
After using the Appellant’s internal review procedures, the Respondent sought judicial review. The High Court quashed the Determination and required the complaint to be reconsidered, holding that the complaint could in principle concern deposits prejudicial to health under section 79(1)(e) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (“EPA”). [3][4][5][6][7][8]
The Appellant appealed. Before the appeal hearing, the complaint was redetermined, but the Court heard no argument about whether the appeal had thereby become academic. [9]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether cat faeces could constitute an “accumulation or deposit” under section 79(1)(e) of the EPA. [10]
- Whether section 79(1)(e) required the deposit to result from a purposeful or wilful act. [11]
- Whether the Appellant had wrongly approached the complaint under section 79(1)(f), concerning animals kept in a particular place or manner, rather than section 79(1)(e). [12][10]
- Whether the Appellant had erred in its treatment of the CCTV evidence and in relying on common-law principles concerning cats’ roaming. [13][14][10]
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- The Appellant argued that “any deposit” under section 79(1)(e) required a purposeful or wilful act and therefore involved a causal element. [11][15]
- It argued that the complaint should have been considered under section 79(1)(f), rather than section 79(1)(e). [10][16]
- It relied on authorities said to support the proposition that a statutory deposit involved an act of depositing. [17][18][19][20]
- The Appellant contended that the High Court’s decision could have significant consequences for cat owners and local authorities. [21]
Respondent’s Position
- The Respondent’s challenge was that the Appellant had considered only how the cats were kept, without asking whether the fouling constituted deposits prejudicial to health under section 79(1)(e). [12][22]
- He relied on the evidence of fouling, the limitations of the CCTV coverage, and potential health risks associated with cat faeces. [23][24][13]
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| R v Carrick DC ex p. Shelley [1996] Env LR 273 | A local authority must properly determine whether a statutory nuisance exists and discharge its statutory duty. | The Court treated the case as supporting the separation between identifying a nuisance and determining responsibility. [25][20][26] |
| Buckle v Holmes [1926] 2 KB 125 | A cat owner was not liable in trespass when a cat strayed onto neighbouring land and killed pigeons. | The authority did not assist in deciding whether cat fouling could fall within section 79 of the EPA. [27] |
| R (on the application of Ball) v Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council [2024] EWCA Civ 433, [2025] 1 All ER 1025 | The EPA establishes two stages: determining whether a statutory nuisance exists and, if so, serving an abatement notice. | The Court applied this distinction to reject the argument that responsibility forms part of the definition of the nuisance itself. [28][29] |
| R v Bristol City Council, ex p. Everett [1999] 1 WLR 1170 | The statutory history of Part III of the EPA. | The Court used the legislative history to show that statutory nuisances have traditionally been defined by listed things or states of affairs prejudicial to health or constituting a nuisance. [30][31] |
| Draper v Sperring (1861) 10 CB (NS) 113 | Animal droppings can constitute a deposit or accumulation and, if other requirements are met, a statutory nuisance. | The case supported the two-stage approach and did not establish any purposeful or wilful-act requirement. [32][33][34][35] |
| The Mayor etc. of Scarborough v The Rural Sanitary Authority of the Scarborough Poor Law Union (1876) 1 Ex D 344 | The legal consequences of depositing waste and the form of an abatement order. | The Court held that the case did not support restricting “deposit” to something placed purposefully or wilfully. [35][18][19] |
| The Bishop Auckland Local Board v The Bishop Auckland Iron and Steel Company Ltd (1882) 10 QBD 138 | An accumulation could constitute a nuisance where offensive smells interfered with personal comfort, without proof of injury to health. | The authority did not assist the Appellant’s argument about purposeful deposits. [36] |
| Neath Rural District Council and Williams [1951] 1 KB 115 | Responsibility for a statutory nuisance depends on the wording of the relevant statutory provision. | The Court relied on the case to hold that responsibility under the EPA is governed by section 79(7), not by an additional implied purpose requirement. [37][38][39] |
| R v Walden Jones [1936] Crim LR 839 | An abatement notice concerning a person who owned numerous cats. | The case was held not to provide helpful guidance on the issue before the Court. [40] |
| R v Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte London Waste Regulation Authority; Berkshire County Council v Scott [1993] 3 All ER 113 | A case under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. | The Court distinguished it because that statute had different wording and purposes and did not concern the EPA. [41][42] |
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
The Court focused on the first ground of appeal because the Appellant accepted that the remaining grounds would not independently justify the appeal if that ground failed. [10][16]
Section 79(1) defines statutory nuisances by reference to listed physical matters or states of affairs that are prejudicial to health or a nuisance. It contains no requirement that a person must have acted purposefully or wilfully. [43][44]
The phrase “any accumulation or deposit” concerns the existence of the relevant physical matter, not how it came about or who caused it. “Deposit” is used as a noun, and its juxtaposition with “accumulation” reinforces that interpretation. [45][15]
The statutory duties of inspection and investigation under section 79 require the local authority to consider whether a statutory nuisance exists; they do not require it first to determine who caused it. Responsibility arises at the subsequent section 80 stage, when an abatement notice is served on the person responsible as defined by section 79(7). [46][47][48]
The Court considered this division consistent with the statutory scheme and its legislative history. Introducing a separate purpose-based responsibility test would conflict with the express responsibility test in section 79(7) and create confusion. [30][49]
The authorities relied on by the Appellant did not support its proposed limitation. In particular, Draper v Sperring showed that animal droppings could constitute a deposit or accumulation, while Shelley treated material carried onto a beach by the sea as capable in principle of being a deposit or accumulation. [34][35][20][50][26]
The Court therefore upheld the High Court’s conclusion that the complaint had to be considered under section 79(1)(e), while emphasising that this did not determine whether the alleged fouling actually constituted a statutory nuisance. [51][24][52][21]
Holding and Implications
The appeal was dismissed. The declaration made by the High Court therefore remained in force. [53][52][54]
The complaint had to be redetermined according to the correct legal principles. The judgment did not decide that the cat fouling constituted a statutory nuisance, and expressed no view on the outcome of the redetermination. [21]
No broader consequence was determined beyond requiring lawful reconsideration of the complaint; the judgment did not establish that the particular alleged fouling was a statutory nuisance. [21]
Alert