Adam Rulewski looks at the lessons to be learned from the recent case of Williamson v Caerphilly County Borough Council.

It was recently reported on Local Government Lawyer (5 Jan 2026) that the High Court had recently found against a Local Authority’s decision not to investigate a statutory nuisance. In the case, a cat owner was alleged to have caused a statutory nuisance when their cats had fouled in a neighbour’s property.

Having emerged from the Christmas period during which I was introduced to a new board game – Cat Crimes – in which players co-operatively investigate which cat has committed a mischievous misdeed, it seemed to me that the creators may have overlooked the feline frivolities made possible by the Environmental Protection Act.

The headline from the legal decision in Williamson, R (On the Application Of) v Caerphilly County Borough Council [2025] EWHC 3312 (Admin) (19 December 2025) is that cat fouling is a statutory nuisance, and the Council was wrong to decide not to investigate, in circumstances whereby they considered cats to have a ‘right to roam’ and considered wild animals, sometimes called ‘free spirits’. Does this now mean that all cat owners should be worried and are now liable for statutory nuisance if their cat fouls in neighbouring gardens? Could the decision turn a nation of caring cat lovers into a nation of feline felons? Will Councils be forced to serve abatement notices on cat owners? Can vengeful neighbours commence private prosecutions under s82 Environmental Protection Act 1990? Could it create a new cottage industry for firms of solicitors who practice in such proceedings?

Notwithstanding the decision, this seems unlikely, and most cat owners can likely rest easy.

The decision concerned whether the presence of cat faeces on land amounted to a statutory nuisance. The Council said no. The reason, they said, is that the way in which a person keeps cats is not a statutory nuisance. They relied (the court say wrongly) on s79(1)(f) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, “any animal kept in such a place or manner as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance” whereas the Court says the nuisance was plainly under (e) “any accumulation or deposit which is prejudicial to health or a nuisance”. The Court says that it was too narrow to restrict this to deposits on the land of the cat owner, and this interpretation was not supported by the case law. The question, says the court, is whether the deposit on any land is prejudicial to health or a nuisance. In this case, the Court says the deposit did meet that test.

However, that is not the end. Where the Council establishes the existence of a statutory nuisance, the Council “shall” serve an abatement notice (s80(1) Environmental Protection Act 1990). The question then, is on whom should such an abatement notice be served? Section 80(2) tells us that it should be served on:

(a) except in a case falling within paragraph (b) or (c) below, on the person responsible for the nuisance;

(b) where the nuisance arises from any defect of a structural character, on the owner of the premises;

(c) where the person responsible for the nuisance cannot be found or the nuisance has not yet occurred, on the owner or occupier of the premises.

The step the Council should then take is to establish who is the person responsible for the statutory nuisance. The person responsible is defined in s79 as the person whose “act, default or sufferance” the nuisance is attributable to. For the cat owner to be liable, they therefore must have done some act to create the nuisance, or failed to comply with an obligation which has then caused the nuisance to arise, or allowed (‘suffered’) the nuisance to exist.

In this case, the Council was correct – an owner of a cat is not responsible if it trespasses and subsequently defecates on neighbouring land. They do indeed have a right to roam. The error appears to be in applying this test to the first question (is there a statutory nuisance?) rather than the next question (who is the person responsible?).

This is supported by case law. Buckle v Holmes [1926] All ER Rep 90 concerned arguably more serious circumstances. An aggrieved pigeon fancier brought a claim against his neighbour, following the destruction of several of his pigeons by his neighbour’s cat, notwithstanding the Defendant appearing to have immediately dispatched his cat on the spot after discovering the cat was guilty of the crime. Different times, it seems.

The case law was thoroughly reviewed. Banks LJ found “In my opinion, it is quite impossible, apart from legislation, to suggest that the owner of a cat is responsible for a trespass which results in damage to an adjoining owner's pigeons.”. Atkin LJ concurred, “For the reasons given by my Lord, it appears to me that a cat must be placed in the same category as a dog as far as the question of the liability of the owner of the cat for damage done by the cat when trespassing goes, even though the damage, as is the case here, is the result of the natural propensity of the cat. In these circumstances, it appears to me to follow that the owner is not responsible.”

The Animals Act 1971 updated and codified the law to a degree. It restricted liability in respect of damage caused by animals “which do not belong to a dangerous species” (which would include cats) to cases only where the damage caused is of a kind which “was likely to be severe” and the likelihood of the severity was “due to characteristics of the animal which are not normally found in animals of the same species” and “those characteristics were known to the keeper”. Given the natural propensity of the cat to foul when roaming, and that this fouling is not normally particularly severe, it is safe to say such fouling is unlikely to incur liability under the legislation.

Absent any legislative provision imparting liability on cat owners for fouling, and given the clear exclusion of liability in the common law, it seems extremely difficult to justify the finding that an owner of a cat is liable for the natural consequences of the nature of that cat. Unless, as hinted at in Buckle v Holmes, that cat is a tiger.

It seems, then, that cat owners are safe, and we are not at risk of the sudden criminalisation of cat owners for the natural consequences of the nature of cats.

Where would that leave the Council then, having established a statutory nuisance exists, thereby placing it under a duty to serve an abatement notice? Following the provisions of 80(2) EPA 1990, they appear to have little choice but to serve the owner or occupier of the land on which the nuisance is present, if the person responsible cannot be identified. In this case, that is the complainant! Given the findings of the Court, and an evaluation of the existing law, Mr Williamson (the successful claimant in the Caerphilly case) may find himself on the receiving end of an abatement notice. A rather pyrrhic victory. Best to tread carefully in Caerphilly if you have cat mess in your garden.

Adam Rulewski is Principal Lawyer – Housing, Civil and Prosecutions at the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham.