GB - Manolete Partners Plc v Hastings Borough Council

Judgment

Lord Justice Jackson:

This judgment is in six parts, namely:

Part 1. Introduction (paragraphs 2 to 11) Part 2. The facts (paragraphs 12 to 34) Part 3. The present proceedings (paragraphs 35 to 41) Part 4. The appeal to the Court of Appeal (paragraphs 42 to 45) Part 5. The legislative history (paragraphs 46 to 63) Part 6. Was Stylus in default within the meaning of section 106 of the Building Act 1984? (paragraphs 64 to 83) Part 7. Absent section 78 of the 1984 Act, did Stylus have a good cause of action against the Council? (paragraphs 84 to 96) Part 8. Executive summary and conclusion (paragraphs 97-98)

Part 1. Introduction

This is an appeal by a local authority against a decision that it is liable to pay compensation to the operators of a business on a seaside pier, which the Council had temporarily closed to the public in the exercise of its statutory powers. The principal issue in the appeal is whether the operators of the business on the pier were “in default” within the meaning of section 106 (1) of the Building Act 1984 (“the 1984 Act”).

The claimant in the action and respondent in the Court of Appeal is Manolete Partners Plc (“Manolete”). Manolete brings its claim as the assignee of Stylus Sports Ltd (“Stylus”). The defendant in the action and appellant in this court is Hastings Borough Council (“the Council”).

Ravenclaw Investments Incorporated (“Ravenclaw”) is a company registered in Panama, which will feature in the narrative. Boss Management UK Ltd (“BM”) has acted as Ravenclaw’s agent in the UK.

As explained later in this judgment, the 1984 Act draws together a number of provisions concerning the construction and maintenance of buildings. Part I provides for the making of building regulations. Part II deals with supervision of construction work. Part III deals with disparate matters concerning buildings. Part IV collects together a number of general provisions.

Within Part III of the 1984 Act, section 76 deals with defective buildings and sections 77-78 deal with dangerous buildings. The focus of section 76 is upon buildings which are injurious to health, rather than liable to cause physical injury: see R v Bristol City Council, ex parte Everett [1999] 1 WLR at 1180H, per Buxton LJ. Sections 77 and 78, on the other hand, are concerned with buildings which have become dangerous because their structure is failing.

Section 77 of the 1984 Act provides:

“ Dangerous building

(1) If it appears to a local authority that a buildi