A small price to pay for living in an earthquake-free zone is the paucity of case law on naturally occurring landslips. (Old mine workings are another story.) This deficiency has been partly remedied by Holbeck Hall Hotel Ltd v Scarborough Borough Council [2000] EGCS 29, which concerned a cliff that had a history of crumbling from time to time onto rocks below: see
The defendant council owned land running along the edge of the cliff. The claimant’s hotel, which was set further back, had to be demolished after a particularly severe movement had taken away the lawn and undermined an entire wing. The trial judge held the defendants responsible for allowing this to happen. The Court of Appeal disagreed after finding, on the particular facts of the case, that the defendants had not been negligent.
However, before reaching that stage, the court had to consider whether the defendants owed the claimant a duty of care in the first place. On that issue the defendants, partly relying on the law as stated in Bond v Norman [1940] 2 All ER 12, argued that since they had not been guilty of withdrawing support, and since there had been no encroachment on the claimant’s land, their only duty was to allow the claimant to come onto to their land to take such steps as it could to restore support.
The court rejected that argument, holding that, as regards negligence liability for naturally occurring events, no distinction could be drawn today between a claim for loss of support and a claim for damage caused by an escape , as allowed eg in Goldman v Hargrave [1967] 1 AC 645 (spread of fire) and Leakey v National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty [1980] 1 All ER 17 (falling rubble and soil). In either case a “measured duty of care” arose when the defendant became or should have become aware of a state of affairs on his land that posed a threat to his neighbour’s land: see generally
A small price to pay for living in an earthquake-free zone is the paucity of case law on naturally occurring landslips. (Old mine workings are another story.) This deficiency has been partly remedied by Holbeck Hall Hotel Ltd v Scarborough Borough Council [2000] EGCS 29, which concerned a cliff that had a history of crumbling from time to time onto rocks below: see Landslide decision Estates Gazette 6 May 2000, p151.
The defendant council owned land running along the edge of the cliff. The claimant’s hotel, which was set further back, had to be demolished after a particularly severe movement had taken away the lawn and undermined an entire wing. The trial judge held the defendants responsible for allowing this to happen. The Court of Appeal disagreed after finding, on the particular facts of the case, that the defendants had not been negligent.
However, before reaching that stage, the court had to consider whether the defendants owed the claimant a duty of care in the first place. On that issue the defendants, partly relying on the law as stated in Bond v Norman [1940] 2 All ER 12, argued that since they had not been guilty of withdrawing support, and since there had been no encroachment on the claimant’s land, their only duty was to allow the claimant to come onto to their land to take such steps as it could to restore support.
The court rejected that argument, holding that, as regards negligence liability for naturally occurring events, no distinction could be drawn today between a claim for loss of support and a claim for damage caused by an escape , as allowed eg in Goldman v Hargrave [1967] 1 AC 645 (spread of fire) and Leakey v National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty [1980] 1 All ER 17 (falling rubble and soil). In either case a “measured duty of care” arose when the defendant became or should have become aware of a state of affairs on his land that posed a threat to his neighbour’s land: see generally PP 2002/123.
