Council must reconsider cat fouling complaint after High Court ruling

In Williamson, R (On the Application Of) v Caerphilly County Borough Council [2025] EWHC 3312 (Admin) (19 December 2025), Judge Jarman KC, sitting as a High Court judge, found that the council failed to properly consider the claimant's argument that the fouling was prejudicial to health.

The claimant formally complained to the council in October 2024, arguing that he woke "with dread each day wondering if there is yet more cat mess for me to have to clean up".

He said he had CCTV footage showing the two cats fouling in his garden on multiple occasions and could prove that the two cats from the same household were to blame.

"As a parent of a newborn who will soon be playing in our garden, I am particularly concerned about the health risks associated with cat faeces, such as toxoplasmosis," he continued.

The letter added: "My daughter should not be exposed to such dangers in her own home environment."

His complaint, submitted by email, also said that while cats have a right to roam, "they do not have the right to cause a statutory nuisance or pose an environmental health risk".

However, an environmental officer said that the complaint did not fall within the remit of statutory nuisance, and suggested the claimant should consider civil action.

The council's response said: "If animals are kept at a specific property and that property is causing a nuisance (fouling not been picked up), we could investigate under [Environmental Protection Act 1990] S79(1)(f), but animals moving freely between properties is not something which can be a statutory nuisance."

Later correspondence from the council added: "Cat owners are also required to make considerations of welfare, and not letting cats outside when they are accustomed to it, can be detrimental to their welfare.

"Based on the current evidence, state of the property, the fact that only three cats are kept and the provisions in place, I am satisfied that the subject is not keeping animals in such a manner as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance stop."

The homeowner's ensuing High Court claim mainly argued that the council approached his complaint by considering the manner in which the cats were kept and/or the right at common law for cats to roam, rather than whether there was a statutory nuisance because the fouling amounted to deposits prejudicial to health.

The first ground of argument contended that the council proceeded under the wrong subsection of section 79(1), namely (f), and should have considered the complaint under subsection (e).

Part III, Section 79(1) of the 1990 Act sets out the matters which constitute statutory nuisance for the purposes of that Part, and provides the following:

(1) the following matters constitute "statutory nuisances" for the purposes of this Part, that is to say…

(e) any accumulation or deposit which is prejudicial to health or a nuisance;

(f) any animal kept in such a place or manner as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance

and it shall be the duty of every local authority to cause its area to be inspected from time to time to detect any statutory nuisances which ought to be dealt with under section 80 below or sections 80 and 80A below and, where a complaint of a statutory nuisance is made to it by a person living within its area, to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to investigate the complaint."

At the High Court, the claimant accepted that he did not mention subsection (e) and that he did refer to subsection (f) after the officer had done so, but maintained that his complaint in substance clearly raised the issue of whether the fouling in his garden was prejudicial to health.

The council meanwhile argued that domestic cats are "very common and do roam and whilst doing so, often foul other land", adding that Parliament cannot have intended the provisions of section 79 to apply to such a situation.

The first point the council argued was that such transient fouling on other land cannot amount to "any deposit", and what is contemplated by the section is a deposit on the land of the person said to be causing the nuisance.

On this ground, the judge said: "I accept that the complaint made no specific reference to subsection (e), but I also accept that the complaint in substance clearly raised the issue that the fouling was deposited on the Claimant's land and was prejudicial to health. His complaint as worded was not about the manner in which the cats were kept or the mere fact that they were allowed to roam. It was the fouling in his garden that he objected to, on grounds of health. In my judgment the Defendant should have approached the complaint on that basis and it is clear that it did not do so."

He also found there was no justification for interpreting the "clear and wide words 'any deposit' in such a restrictive way".

In addition, the judge concluded that the cat faeces in the present case "were clearly capable of being prejudicial to health" and this should have been considered by the council, despite the council's argument that there "was no evidence" that the cats carried toxoplasmosis.

The judge said: "In my judgment ground 1 is made out. That is sufficient for the claim to succeed."

The judge ultimately found that the determination "cannot stand" and must be redetermined.

The remaining grounds were also successful.

A spokesperson for Caerphilly County Borough Council said: “We are considering the judgement and will take further appropriate action in due course.”

Adam Carey