View report page

63
Accordingly, the Master of the Rolls, in giving judgment on
the Council's appeal, stated that the Court was bound to answer
the question raised in the owner's favour by reason of the decision
in the case of the Board of Governors of the London Hospital v.
Jacobs.
The Master of the Rolls went on to say, however, that, having
regard to the difficulties of the case and out of respect to the
argument put forward on the Council's behalf by Counsel, he would
make references to the relevant sections of the Acts. In reviewing
the references which had been submitted by Counsel for both parties,
the following remarks by the Master of the Rolls may be regarded
as significant
If, therefore, the matter has been res integra
(i.e. under consideration on its merits without
reference to any views previously expressed by
the Court), I should have felt, to say the least,
a strong inclination towards Counsel's view. But
I think it would be wrong for us to arrive at a
conclusion in conflict with what this court said
in the case of the Board of Governors of the
London Hospital v. Jacobs. "
Later, the Master of the Rolls also referred to the fact that
the Court which heard the arguments in the earlier case, was perhaps
less fortunate than his Court which had had close arguments
presented on both sides.
The Housing Act, 1936, provides that, in appeals arising under
Section 15, as this does, the decision of the Court of Appeal shall
be final and no appeal shall lie to the House of Lords.
The practical effect of the decision appears to be that the
Council may still make Closing Orders in respect of underground
rooms, but, in considering whether they are reasonably fit for
occupation, the standards to be applied are those set out in
Section 9 of the 1954 Act, instead of the standards laid down by
the Underground Room Regulations, which, in relation to underground
rooms were, of course, easier to apply. As the provisions of
Section 9 of the 1954 Act were aimed at the same factors, e. g.
ventilation, natural lighting, dampness, etc., it may be that, in
general, aClosing Order can be justified under Section 9 provisions
in a case where it can be justified under the Underground Room
Regulations, but the question of proof that the defects are such
that they cannot be remedied at a reasonable cost will undoubtedly
be more difficult.