Support quality, independent, local journalism…that matters

From just £1 a month you can help fund our work – and use our website without adverts. Become a member today

Caerphilly County Borough Council has been ordered to reconsider a resident’s complaint about repeated cat fouling in his garden after the High Court ruled the authority applied the law incorrectly.

In a judgment handed down on December 19, His Honour Judge Jarman KC, sitting as a High Court judge in Cardiff, upheld a legal challenge brought by Richard James Williamson against the council’s decision to dismiss his complaint under statutory nuisance legislation.

Mr Williamson had complained in October 2024 that his neighbour’s two cats were regularly fouling in his garden. He said the problem had been ongoing for several months, that humane deterrents had failed, and that CCTV footage showed the cats repeatedly fouling on his property. He also raised concerns about potential health risks, including toxoplasmosis, particularly because he had a newborn child who would soon be using the garden.

Environmental health officers initially told Mr Williamson the matter did not fall within the scope of statutory nuisance law, stating that animals moving freely between properties could not constitute a statutory nuisance. Although the council later investigated the complaint, it ultimately decided on November 11 last year 2024 that no statutory nuisance existed.

The council’s decision relied in part on the common law principle that cats have a “right to roam”, and on an inspection which concluded the cats’ owners were keeping them appropriately and they had access to a litter tray.

Mr Williamson challenged that decision by way of judicial review. He argued the council had focused on how the cats were kept, rather than considering whether the fouling itself amounted to an “accumulation or deposit prejudicial to health” under section 79(1)(e) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

In his judgment, Judge Jarman KC agreed. He found the council had approached the complaint under the wrong legal test and had failed to properly consider whether the cat faeces left in the garden were capable of amounting to a statutory nuisance.

The judge rejected the argument that fouling by roaming cats could not amount to a “deposit” under the Act, stating that the wording of the legislation was “clear and wide” and contained no exemption for cat faeces.

He also ruled that cat fouling was “clearly capable of being prejudicial to health” and that the council should have considered relevant health guidance and, if necessary, sought expert advice.

The court also found fault with the council’s handling of CCTV evidence, ruling that footage showing cats entering areas where faeces were later found was relevant and should have been taken into account. In addition, the judge held that reliance on cats’ right to roam and animal welfare considerations was legally irrelevant at the stage of determining whether a statutory nuisance existed.

As a result, the High Court declared the council’s decision unlawful and ordered that the complaint be redetermined in accordance with the correct legal principles. The judge stressed that his ruling did not predetermine the outcome of that reconsideration.

The council and Mr Williamson were invited to agree a draft order dealing with the consequences of the judgment within 21 days.

A Caerphilly County Borough Council spokesperson said the authority was considering the judgement and would take further appropriate action in due course.