Martin & Anor v The Coal Authority, Court of Appeal - Lands Tribunal, July 06, 2005, [2005] EWLands LCA_197_2000

Reporting Judge: [2005] EWLands LCA_197_2000

President: Martin & Anor v The Coal Authority

Linked as:

Extract

Martin & Anor v The Coal Authority, Court of Appeal - Lands Tribunal, July 06, 2005, [2005] EWLands LCA_197_2000

LCA/197/2000

LANDS TRIBUNAL ACT 1949

COMPENSATION - mining subsidence - bungalow suffering successive incidences of damage - claimants rebuilding on adjacent site - whether rebuilding necessary to remedy damage to claimants' reasonable satisfaction - cost of repairs - Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 section 6(2)(a) - compensation awarded £53,958

IN THE MATTER OF A NOTICE OF REFERENCE

BETWEEN (1) JOHN BARRY DIGBY MARTIN Claimants

(2) MAUREEN EDITH MARTIN

and

THE COAL AUTHORITY Compensating

Authority

Re: Dwellinghouse, Hillside Lodge,

Keele Road, Whitmore,

Newcastle-Under-Lyme

Staffs ST5 5HW

Before: The President and N J Rose FRICS

Sitting at Procession House, 55 Ludgate Hill, London EC4M 7JW

on 11, 12, 13, 14 and 28 April 2005

Justin Mort instructed by Kent Jones & Done, solicitors of Stoke-on-Trent, for the claimants

Paul Darling QC instructed by DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary, solicitors of Sheffield, for the compensating authority

The following cases were referred to in argument:

Edwards v National Coal Board [1949] 1 All ER 743

Jordan v Norfolk County Council [1994] 4 All ER 218

Langley v Coal Authority [2003] EWCA Civ 204

McAreavey v Coal Authority (2000) 80 P & CR 41

Landsborough v Coal Authority (Lands Tribunal for Scotland, 25 November 2004, unreported)

DECISION

Introduction

1. The claim in this case is made by Mr J B D and Mrs M E Martin (``the claimants'') under the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 and arises out of subsidence damage sustained by the claimants' bungalow, Hillside Lodge, Keele Road, Whitmore, Newcastle-under-Lyme, as the result of coal-mining operations. Because of the damage sustained by the bungalow, the claimants' insurers accepted that it was appropriate for it to be demolished and a replacement bungalow erected a short distance away. The claimants are now seeking reimbursement for the costs of this rebuilding and the professional fees associated with it and also for a number of other items of expenditure. The Coal Authority (``the Authority'') contend that it was not necessary to rebuild the bungalow in order to remedy the subsidence damage, and they deny that they are liable to pay these sums. The claimants contend in the alternative that they are entitled to the amount that it would reasonably have cost them to repair the bungalow, if they had decided to retain it, and to incidental costs. The Authority accept liability on ...

See the full content of this document