View report page

erably delayed by an objection laid by an interested owner. The
case was considered in June, 1937. Under section 63(1) of the
Housing Act, 1935 (which has been replaced by Section 41(1) of
the Housing Act, 1936), it is provided that when a person has
made objection to a clearance order or compulsory purchase order
on the grounds that a building included in that order is not unfit
for human habitation, the Minister shall not cause a local enquiry
to be held until after it has been shown to his satisfaction that the
local authority have served upon the objector a notice in writing
stating what facts they allege as their principal grounds for being
satisfied that the building is so unfit.
The first question was whether, in view of section 11 of the
Housing Act, 1930 (now the second schedule to the Act of 1936—
see section 29(3) of that Act), prohibition could be sought. It was
agreed by the Solicitor General that it could be; but the Divisional
Court did not decide this point, although they were apparently in
favour of the plaintiff's contention. The decision turned on the
amount of information given by the local authority.
So far the case may be said to decide that the local authority
are bound to give such information as might be put in a statement
of claim if they were bringing an action, but not the evidence
they proposed to advance in support of that claim.
The forms of notice used were substantially those recommended
by the Association of Municipal Corporations and separate
forms were served in respect of each house.
Following the decision the Inquiry was commenced by the
Minister of Health on September 30th, 1937, and continued for
several days. The Minister's findings had not been received by
the end of the year.
342