United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> Lanarkshire County Council v. Coatbridge Magistrates [1910] UKHL 508 (08 April 1910)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1910/47SLR0508.html
Cite as: [1910] UKHL 508, 47 ScotLR 508

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

SCOTTISH_SLR_House_of_Lords

Page: 508↓

House of Lords.

Friday, April 8. 1910.

(Before the Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Earl of Halsbury, Lord James, Lord Atkinson, Lord Collins, and Lord Shaw.)

47 SLR 508

Lanarkshire County Council

v.

Airdrie Magistrates.

47SLR0508

Lanarkshire County Council

v.

Coatbridge Magistrates.

(Ante July 9, 1907, 44 S.L.R. 915.)

Subject_River — Rivers Pollution Prevention Acts — Burgh — County Council — Defences — Relevancy — Rivers Pollution Prevention Act 1876 (39 and 40 Vict. cap. 75), secs. 3, 8, 20; 1893 (56 and 57 Vict. cap. 31), sec. 1.
Facts:

In a petition under the Rivers Pollution Prevention Acts to have the magistrates of certain burghs ordained to abstain from “causing to fall or flow, or knowingly permitting to fall or flow or to be carried, into certain streams any solid or liquid sewage matter, held that it was irrelevant to aver in defence that the streams were so polluted as to be merely sewers into which it could not possibly be an offence to put sewage.

Headnote:

These cases are reported ante ut supra.

The Magistrates of Airdrie and the Magistrates of Coatbridge appealed to the House of Lords.

At the conclusion of the appellants' argument—

Judgment:

Lord Chancellor—This argument has the merit of singularity and also of ingenuity but I think it is one of the most hopeless arguments I have heard for a considerable time.

The Rivers Pollution Act of 1876 prohibits the pouring of sewage into streams. It defines “streams” so as to include all water-courses except “water-courses at the passing of this Act” (namely 1876) “mainly used as sewers emptying directly into the sea or tidal waters.” The obvious policy and the obvious effect of the Act is to stop the pouring of foul water into a stream, but it excuses this being done in certain circumstances, as, for example, if it was being done as long ago as 1876, and the best practicable means are now used to render it harmless.

It is difficult to think of a simpler Act or one more clearly expressed. The Act states that you must not foul a stream except under particular conditions. Now undoubtedly and admittedly the now appellants

Page: 509↓

do foul these burns or courses of running water, which come also clearly within the definition of “streams” in the Act of 1876, and for the present hearing it must be taken that they did not bring themselves within any of the exceptions or entitle themselves to any of the excuses which are set forth in the Act. There is a point reserved upon that with which the judgment of this House will have nothing to do. Of course that point reserved is still reserved. But what the appellants say is this—Permit us to prove that these burns are sewers, and if we can prove that they are sewers, surely it cannot be an offence to pour sewage matter into the sewers. That is merely asking leave to prove that they have with or without the contribution of others committed in an aggravated degree the very offence with which they are charged. The object of the Act is to prevent streams being turned into sewers, and this is what they propose to do and have done.

It is very likely indeed that these burns have been made so dirty that they are in fact such as commonly would be called sewers. I really do not know whether that be so or not, but this I do know upon the record here, that the appellants have done what is forbidden by the Act of Parliament and have not brought themselves within any of the exceptions or excuses which are laid down and provided in the Act.

Reference has been made to several cases, notably to Gaunt's case. I think Gaunt's case, so far as I can see, has been misunderstood, but if Gaunt's case or any other case expresses any opinion inconsistent with the view which I have ventured to express, I for one should wholly decline to be bound by it.

I therefore move your Lordships that this appeal be dismissed with costs.

Earl of Halsbury—I am entirely of the same opinion, but I wish to add that Gaunt's case appears to me to have been perfectly rightly decided, and the argument founded upon it was, I think, founded upon an entire misapprehension of what that case decided. Otherwise I entirely concur with what the Lord Chancellor has said. I think this case was hopelessly unarguable.

Lord James of Hereford—I concur.

Lord Atkinson—I concur.

Lord Collins—I concur.

Lord Shaw—I agree.

Their Lordships dismissed the appeals with expenses.

Counsel:

Counsel for the Petitioners (Respondents in the House of Lords)— Wilson, K.C.— Hon. Wm. Watson. Agents— Ross, Smith, & Dykes, S.S.C., Edinburgh— Grahames, Currey, & Spens, Westminster.

Counsel for the Respondents in the Petition (Appellants)— Cripps, K.C.— Horne. Agents— Drummond & Reid, W.S., Edinburgh (for Airdrie)— Laing & Motherwell, W.S., Edinburgh (for Coatbridge)— John Kennedy, W.S., Westminster.
1910