Economic Efficiency, Nuisance and Sewage: New Lessons from Attorney-General v Council of the Borough of Birmingham, 1858-1895
This paper examines the post-litigation history of a celebrated and much-cited English nuisance case of 1858 concerning sewage pollution of the river Tame. This legal case is a classic citation purporting to illustrate the absence in English nuisance law of a ‘‘social benefit’’ defence for nuisance. As the court’s judgment in law found in favour of an individual landowner against the polluting city of Birmingham, population 250,000, property rights were manifestly awarded where benefits were lower. Coase’s Theorem arguments would lead to the expectation that post-litigation negotiations would ensue and evidence is presented that in this case such negotiations did occur, but broke down. The legal conflict stretched on over nearly 40 years, during which period the pollution was, in practice, allowed to continue until adequate sewage treatment techniques developed. The argument is made that the English court, in effect, by failing to enforce their decisions decisively, did take note of the calamitous social effects that would have followed an enforcement of the court’s orders.
|Date of creation:||Sep 2004|
|Date of revision:|
|Publication status:||Forthcoming in Journal of Legal Studies|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Department of Economics, University of Keele, Keele, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG - United Kingdom|
Phone: +44 (0)1782 584581
Fax: +44 (0)1782 717577
Web page: http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/ec/cer/
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:|| Postal: Centre for Economic Research, Research Institute for Public Policy and Management, Keele University, Staffordshire ST5 5BG - United Kingdom|
Web: http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/ec/cer/pubs_kerps.htm Email:
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kee:kerpuk:2004/08. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Martin E. Diedrich)The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Martin E. Diedrich to update the entry or send us the correct email address
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.