Ian White v The Coal Authority [2018] UKUT 134 (LC)
Citation: [2018] UKUT 134 (LC)
This was a claim brought by Mr White against the Coal Authority under the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991. The respondent had admitted liability and so only quantum was in issue.
The claim concerned Tidbury Castle Farm in Coventry. Between September and December 2010 there was mining taking place in the vicinity of the farm, 770m underground. Between April 2011 and April 2013 the claimant was living elsewhere because of the breakdown of his marriage. When he returned to the farm he discovered substantial cracking to the floors and walls as well as significant tilting. This was a result of subsidence caused by the mining. The tribunal observed notable slopes across some of the floors and window frames during a site visit.
It was agreed that the only way to safely rectify the tilting was to demolish the house and rebuild it. Under the statute, the Coal Authority is liable to do repairs, or pay the cost of repairs, provided that those repairs are “reasonably practicable”. The Upper Tribunal accepted the claimant’s argument that it was “reasonably practicable” under the statute to demolish and rebuild the house.
Furthermore, it was irrelevant that the claimant intended to rebuild a different house once the defective one had been demolished. The statute made clear that he was still entitled to be compensated in such circumstances.
At the close of evidence, the respondent sought to put a new case before the tribunal. The tribunal held that this had been brought too late and was, in any event, a bad point. The respondent argued that the claimant should have given notice of his election to have the respondent pay for the repairs under s.8(4) rather than s.8(3). The respondent’s argument was inconsistent with the statutory scheme and would have bizarre practical consequences. It was therefore rejected.
The tribunal ordered that the respondent pay £859,827.83 in damages plus any applicable VAT. The tribunal also considered whether it would be appropriate to award indemnity costs against the respondent, but held that the high bar for an indemnity costs award had not been met.
Gaynor Chambers represented the claimant.
