Claimants’ property suffering subsidence caused by mining damage – Coal Authority only offering to carry out remedial works in respect of damage for which it accepted liability – Claimants rejecting offer and selling property – Whether claimants entitled to damages in amount of depreciated value of property – Lands Tribunal refusing claim – Appeal allowed
The claimants were the owners of a bungalow known as 22 Smithy Brow, Croft, Warrington, Cheshire. In June 1990 they informed the British Coal Coporation (BCC), the respondent’s statutory predecessor, that their property was showing signs of serious structural damage as a result of mining subsidence. BCC accepted that some of the defects were attributable to the effects of recent mining subsidence, but it denied that its activities had caused the other more substantial damage. BCC offered to carry out remedial works, for which it accepted liability, conditional upon the claimants’ acceptance that it was in full and final satisfaction of all the mining damage caused to the property. The total estimated cost to BCC was just over £3,500. The offer was not accepted. In September 1994 the claimants sold the property for £40,000, although undamaged it would have fetched £115,000. They recovered £75,000 from their insurers, who succeeded to the claimants’ rights by subrogation. The purchaser demolished the property, thus making it impossible for any repairs to be carried out.
By a notice of reference the claimants sought determination by the Lands Tribunal of the question of damages payable to them by the respondent in respect of the subsidence damage. They claimed compensation for depreciation in the value of the property under the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957. The tribunal found that although all the damage to the property had been caused by mining, any award of damages was to be subsidiary to the primary remedy of remedial works and the claimants had not been entitled to refuse the offer of remedial works and to claim depreciation in value. On that basis, the tribunal awarded £6,401.01 for certain fees and compensation for inconvenience. The claimants appealed, contending that the tribunal had the jurisdiction to award damages in the amount of the depreciation. The respondent contended that section 13 of the Act only allowed damages for losses occasioned by delay in carrying out remedial works and did not give a general right to damages for losses caused by the subsidence itself.
Held: The appeal was allowed by a majority.
1. Section 13(3) of the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957 gave the tribunal express power to “make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to its determination”. It could do so by: (a) requiring the respondent to carry out repairs; or (b) to award damages in certain circumstances. It was thus clear that one type of order that might be necessary to give effect to the tribunal’s determination was an order that the respondent pay damages. The particular examples in (a) and (b) did not in any way qualify or limit the general power to “make such order as may be necessary to give effect to its determination”.
2. Under section 13(3) the tribunal had the jurisdiction to award damages in the amount of the depreciated value. By doing so it would have put the claimants in the same position in financial terms as if the respondent had discharged its obligation under section 1 of the Act, which it would have done had it accepted that all the damage was caused by mining subsidence from the outset.
Robert Moxon Browne QC and Patrick Walker (instructed by Beachcroft Wansbroughs, of Leeds) appeared for the appellants; Stephen Grime QC and Ruth Trippier (instructed by Nabarro Nathanson, of Sheffield) appeared for the respondent.
Thomas Elliott, barrister
