View report page

59
was not in all the circumstances a reasonable time,
and that the notice was therefore invalid. He
accordingly dismissed the complaint. On appeal the
Court (Lord Hewart C.J., Shearman and Branson J.J.)
dismissed the appeal.
Their judgment was as follows:—
"It was true that an owner might appeal under s. 15, sub-s. 6,
of the Act of 1909 to the Minister of Health against a notice of a
local authority requiring him to execute certain works or against a
demand for the recovery of expenses incurred by the local authority
in doing the work, but that section did not make the decision of
the Minister final or say that if the owner did not appeal to the
Minister and the local authority did the work their claim for the
expenses of the work could not afterwards be questioned. When
the local authority sought to recover the expenses before a Court
of summary jurisdiction under s. 28 of the Act of 1919, the magistrate
was entitled to see whether the conditions laid down by s. 28 had
been complied with, including the condition that the notice served
upon the owner specified a reasonable time within which he was to
execute the work. The decisions in Ryall v. Cubitt Heath (1922)
1 K.B. 275, and Rex v. Minister of Health. Ex parte Rush (1922)
2 K.B. 28, were not inconsistent."
This decision would appear more than ever to
support our contentions as to the unworkable nature
of Section 28 as it at present stands.
I append hereto a short note of the two appeals by
owners to the Ministry of Health during 1922.

Appeal against demand. Inquiry 30th June, 1922.
Order of Ministry, dated 9th October, 1922, reducing claim
to £129 3s. 3d., and ordering appellant to pay expenses
of Inquiry, £8 13s. 10d., and each party to bear their own
costs.