View report page

(Misdescription) Act, 1913. The retailers named their supplier as the second defendant
in the case, who, in turn, brought in the 'maker-up' company as the third defendant,
who, in their turn, brought in the manufacturer as the fourth defendant.
The court discharged the manufacturer but found all the other defendants guilty.
The third defendant was fined £10, and ordered to pay not only the Council's costs of
the prosectuion, but also all the other defendants' costs, totalling £80.15.0d.
In evidence, the original defendants told of the purchase from the second defendant
of the garment with a label marked 'Nylon net, a fabric of low flammability B. S. 3121*
attached. The second defendant in evidence stated that no previous complaint had been
received. The dress, the subject matter of the proceedings, had been acquired as a
made-up garment, and the label as to low flammability was already attached when the
dress was received by his firm from the third defendants. The third defendant, a
director of a Nottingham firm which makes up garments, in evidence admitted that his
firm attached the label which appeared on the garment. The nylon net had been bought
from the fourth defendants in quantities of one thousand yards, but only part of the
firm's needs were supplied from this source.
Since the institution of these proceedings, tests had been made by the third
defendant on the nylon net supply, and it was discovered that it flared up more readily
than other nylon net which he had in stock. During the period when the garment was made
up, only net from the fourth defendants' factory was used. It had been the custom of
nylon manufacturers in Nottingham for the past four years to use the 'non-flam' process,
and he therefore assumed that the net supplied had been subjected to the process. In
cross-examination the third defendant agreed that the material had to be submitted to
the British Standards Institution, and passed by them, before the label could be
attached. He agreed that no express warranty had been given by the manufacturer, and
also that none had been asked for. Accordingly, on submission that there was no case
for the fourth defendant to answer, the firm who manufactured the nylon was discharged
from the case.
A letter of congratulation on the successful outcome of the case, which had been
reported in the 'Drapers Record', was subsequently received by the Town Clerk from the
British Standards Institution.
It is now some twelve months since the Noise Abatement Act, 1961, came into operation.
Owing to the inextricable mixture of residential property and industry in the
Borough - many factories are virtually situated in yards of dwelling houses - it is to
be expected that many of the complaints received by the Department relate to noise and
general disturbance caused by such business concerns. It is very essential, therefore,
that close co-operation between the Department and industrial undertakings should be
maintained, and this can only be achieved by systematic and regular inspection, which
is not always possible because of the ever-increasing demands on the Public Health
Inspectorate.
It has been found from experience in dealing with such complaints that the
difficulty of proving statutory nuisance within the terms of the Public Health Act is
still a major obstacle to the taking of formal action, owing to the absence of a
statutory standard of noise. This, coupled with the defence contained in section 2(3)
of the Noise Abatement Act-"...that the best practicable means have been used for
preventing and counteracting the effect of the noise or vibration..."-reduces the
effectiveness of the new Act.
Instances of noise complaints received by the Department are illustrated in the
reply to a questionnaire sent to the Committee on the Problem of Noise set up by the
(23)