[2011] EWHC 3164 (Admin) [2011] EWHC 3164 (Admin)

Where the subject of an abatement notice served at a property where he was no longer present was prosecuted due to his subsequent failure to respond, it was unreasonable for the court to deprive him of the opportunity to respond to that criminal prosecution.

[2008] EWHC 3295 (Admin) [2008] EWHC 3295 (Admin)

A magistrates’ court had no power at a preliminary stage of an appeal against an abatement notice to allow the amendment of the notice; however, it did have power under the Statutory Nuisance (Appeals) Regulations 1995 reg.2(5) when making a final order on an appeal to vary a notice so that it took effect as if it had originally been served on another person in substitution for the person named on it, or on another person in addition to the person named on it.

[2003] EWHC 2698 (Admin) [2003] EWHC 2698 (Admin)

A Magistrates’ Court had erred in holding that there was no case for the respondent to answer in respect of an alleged statutory nuisance and breach of an abatement notice in circumstances where there was clear evidence from environmental health officers that the nuisance had been committed.

An abatement notice served by the council on the respondent was not invalid for failing to specify the “works” and “steps” to be taken since the council had not chosen to include in the notice a requirement for works to be done or steps to be taken.

An abatement notice served by a local authority did not breach the rules of natural justice but merely suffered from superfluous words. The local authority successfully appealed against the dismissal of an information that notice had been breached.