JUDGMENT

Murray-Aynsley CJ:

In this case the appellant had been convicted under s 246(6) of the Municipal Ordinance for failure to comply with a notice served under that section.

This section resembles s 93 of the Public Health Act, 1936 The section, in substance, has been re-enacted from earlier Public Health Acts As such it has received judicial interpretation Of it Lumley says at p 301, "Observe that the notice must be given by the authority, or at least by their direction; it cannot be given by an officer on his own initiative". The authorities cited are St Leonard Vestry v. Holmes 50 JP 132 and Bowyer, Philpott and Payne Ltd v. Mather [1919] 1 KB 419 In the former Day, J said: "It is important that the Vestry should exercise a discretion in each case, and it is not enough that the inspector does what he pleases, and then relies on his acts being afterwards approved by the Vestry".

In the present case it is clear that the notice was issued by an officer of the Commissioners on his own initiative The notice and the subsequent proceedings are therefore bad Various other objections were taken by the appellant but, in the circumstances, it was not necessary for me to express any opinion.

The appeal was allowed The conviction and the nuisance order were quashed.

Appeal Allowed.