Cases - Miller-Mead v Minister of Housing and Local Government

Record details

Name

Miller-Mead v Minister of Housing and Local Government

Date

[1963]

Citation

2 QB 196

Keywords

Enforcement notice

Summary

An enforcement notice required the removal of caravans. Miller-Mead contended that the notice was defective as he had existing use rights for the parking and storage of caravans for repair and sale. On appeal, the Minister varied the notice by inserting the word 'residential' before the word 'caravans' and changed the remedy to require the removal of caravans used for human habitation. Miller-Mead challenged this decision, in effect claiming that the notice, being a nullity, could not be amended.

The Court of Appeal held that the notice was not a nullity and the Minister had acted within his powers. The Court observed that a planning authority cannot necessarily know all the relevant facts and may serve a notice where there 'appears' to be a breach.

Lord Justice Upjohn stated that a notice is a nullity if it does not comply with the mandatory statutory requirements. So if it fails to specify the steps to remedy the breach, or the date it comes into effect, or the period for compliance, it will be a nullity. He also stated that a notice which is hopelessly ambiguous and uncertain would be a nullity. But if development without permission is alleged and it is found that no permission is required, the notice is invalid and can be quashed on appeal; it is not a nullity. It is the same where a breach of condition has been alleged but the condition has been complied with. The notice in question alleged a breach greater than that which was established; this error was not fatal to the notice.