Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works [1863] 14 CB (NS) 180 (CP); [1863] 143 ER 414

The district board is entitled, under section 76 of the Metropolis Local Management Act to alter or demolish a house where the builder refrains from providing notice of his intention to build seven days prior proceeding to lay or dig the foundation. C provided 5 days’ notice in advance and the Board of Works ordered the demolition of C’s house without having provided notice to C. C claimed that the Board were not empowered to make this decision without giving notice or giving C the opportunity of being heard. Ds argued that section 76 of the Metropolis Local Management Act provided them with discretion and asserted that so long as they acted ministerially as opposed to judicially, they were not expected to provide notice to C.

Whether the board could demolish Cooper’s building for non-compliance with a statutory notice requirement without first giving him a fair opportunity to be heard.

The Court of Common Pleas held that the board was not entitled to demolish the building without first giving Cooper an opportunity to be heard. The power had serious consequences for his property, and fairness was required even though the statute did not expressly prescribe a hearing. Characterising the board’s task as administrative rather than judicial did not answer the objection. The judges emphasised that representations could help ensure the power was exercised accurately and justly. The decision therefore supplied a procedural condition to the statutory authority. It did not decide that the board could never take enforcement action, only that the drastic step required a fair opportunity for the affected owner to respond.

In the case of Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works [1863] 14 CB (NS) 180 (CP); [1863] 143 ER 414, it was held that an individual is entitled to the right to be heard prior steps adverse to the individual’s property rights are taken.

Cooper is an early statement that statutory silence does not necessarily exclude a right to be heard before an administrative decision gravely affects property. Its relevance extends beyond bodies labelled judicial or quasi-judicial. The content of fairness still depends on the statutory setting and circumstances; the decision does not require a trial before every administrative act. Read alongside Ridge v Baldwin to explain the common law’s role in supplying procedural protection where legislation has not specified every step.