In this case a local authority had charged the defendants, the owners of a broken manhole cover, for carrying out emergency work to make the cover safe. The Court of Appeal stated that the relevant legislation, the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 and regulations 3 and 4 of the Street Works (Maintenance) Regulations, had contained a drafting error in regulation 4, which produced an absurdity. In consequence, to avoid such an absurdity, rather than taking a strict literal interpretation of the regulation, it would take a purposive approach on emergency street repair. The power to execute emergency works was therefore validly conferred on a local authority and the right to be indemnified for this work would be allowed. The literal approach would have prevented the latter and made such situations unworkable.
Here the Supreme Court heard an appeal from the Court of Appeal concerning the interpretation of the word ‘violence’ in section 177(1) of the Housing Act 1996. The Court of Appeal had felt bound by the decision in Danesh v Kensington and Chelsea RLBC (2007), which had held that ‘violence’ was limited to physical contact only. The claimant had left the matrimonial home following her husband’s behaviour. While he had not hit her, nor threatened to, he had shouted in front of their child and refused to give her housekeeping money. She had said, however, that she was frightened that if she confronted him he may hit her or take their children away.
Your organisation does not have access to this article.
Sign up today to give your students the edge they need to achieve their best grades with subject expertise
Subscribe
