Land slip causing collapse of hotel building – Whether council as owner or occupier of neighbouring downhill land owing duty of care to maintain support
Holbeck Hall, a four-star hotel built in 1880 in the South Cliff area of Scarborough, was separated by an extensive lawn from the edge of a cliff on a part of the coast subject to marine erosion. The surrounding land, including the land between the hotel building and the cliff, had been conveyed by the owner to the borough of Scarborough and in due course the freehold estate in the remainder passed to Holbeck Hall Hotel Ltd, Holbeck, which on July 8 1980 granted to English Rose Hotels (Yorkshire) Ltd a lease of land and buildings for 21 years. Since 1893 there had been a number of slips and collapses in the cliffs, which were inherently unstable, and Scarborough Borough Council, had carried out remedial works along the coastline, particularly in 1989 .
On June 3 1993 there was a major slip followed by further slips making it necessary to evacuate the hotel and eventually, when the main building had collapsed, to demolish the remainder. The hotel ceased to exist as a building and as a business. Holbeck and English Rose brought an action against Scarborough for damages not in their capacity as local authority, but as owner and occupier of the land between the hotel grounds and the sea. Scarborough in turn brought an action against Geotechnical Engineering (Northern) Ltd, GEN, a site investigation company, which had reported in 1984 and 1985. The plaintiffs claimed, inter alia, that in relation to actual or threatened landslips, Scarborough owed a duty of care to their uphill neighbour, the plaintiffs. Scarborough’s claim against GEN was based on breach of contract or negligence which GEN denied, alleging that Scarborough had not relied or acted upon the report but had designed and executed works which were inappropriate and different from those recommended.
Held 1. Judgment for the plaintiffs against Scarborough.
2. Scarborough’s claim against GEN failed.
1. Just as an occupier of uphill land owed a general duty of care to a neighbouring downhill occupier in relation to a hazard occurring on the land, whether that hazard was man-made or natural, so an owner of downhill land owed a similar duty vis-à-vis his neighbouring uphill owner: see Leakey v National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty [1980] QB 485. Scarborough were therefore under a duty to exercise a “measured duty of care” to reduce any hazard to the plaintiffs of which they were aware constituted by potential failure of support of the plaintiff’s land: see Goldman v Hargrave [1967] 1 AC 645. Scarborough knew of the hazard and had failed in their duty of care.
2. Scarborough had not relied on GEN’s report in designing and carrying out the 1989 works and their claim against GEN therefore failed.
Christopher Symons QC and Paul Reed (instructed by Elliotts & Co) appeared for Holbeck Hall; Bruce Mauleverer QC and Alexander Nissen (instructed by Kennedys) appeared for GEN Ltd; Paul Darling (instructed by Dibb Lupton Alsop) appeared for Scarborough Borough Council.
