Langley & Ors v Coal Authority

The Court of Appeal considered construction of the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991, in particular the measurement of depreciation under Schedule 1 and the rights of the Coal Authority to elect under section 10 to pay the depreciation amount instead of carrying out remedial works. The court affirmed that the measure of depreciation under Sch.1 para.3 is the difference between the market value of the unit of property in its damaged state and the market value it would have had if not affected by the damage, and that general blight affecting the wider locality must be disregarded. The court rejected the Authority's challenge to the Lands Tribunal President's approach to depreciation, holding that the President did not unlawfully include general blight in the depreciation amounts and was entitled to accept the claimants' valuation evidence.

The court allowed the cross-appeal of the owners of 43 New Station Road, holding that where the Authority had not validly elected to pay depreciation the statutory duty to execute remedial works remained and the concept of reasonable practicability of works is not confined by reference to depreciation amounts alone; cost is a factor but does not justify denying reasonable reinstatement that is practicable.

Background and procedural history:

• The dispute arose from a large landslip in Bolsover causing subsidence damage to properties. Damage notices were served and rejected by the Coal Authority. The matters were referred to the Lands Tribunal. The President of the Lands Tribunal awarded remedies and depreciation payments to a number of owners. The Coal Authority obtained permission to appeal to this court on points of general significance; one owner cross-appealed as to the adequacy of the award.

Nature of the claim / relief sought:

• Claimants sought remedial works and/or depreciation payments under the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991. The Authority contended it was entitled to elect under s.10 to pay the depreciation amount and resisted larger depreciation assessments.

Issues framed:

• How is the depreciation amount to be measured under Sch.1 para.3 and does the Act allow compensation for 'blight' (general or special)?
• Whether the Authority had lost any right to elect under s.10 by its earlier conduct (timing of election).
• Whether, where the Authority had not validly elected, the duty to execute remedial works under the Act required or permitted the scope of reinstatement claimed by the claimants (reasonable practicability and the relevance of cost).

Court's reasoning and disposition:

• The court analysed ss.1–11, Sch.1 and related provisions. It endorsed the Lands Tribunal President's interpretation that the depreciation amount is the difference between market values of the property in its damaged state and what it would have realised undamaged, and that general locality blight uncaused by the particular damage must be disregarded for the undamaged value. The President was entitled to accept the claimants' valuation evidence and to conclude the figures he adopted properly represented depreciation for the purposes of s.10 and s.11(3).
• The Authority's attack on the President's approach to 'special' or particular blight was rejected: the court was not persuaded the President had unlawfully allowed compensation for blight beyond what the Act contemplates.
• On the cross-appeal (43 New Station Road), the court held that where the Authority had not validly elected to pay depreciation, its duty to execute remedial works persisted and the test of reasonable practicability for reinstatement is primarily one of feasibility; cost is relevant but does not operate to cap reinstatement by reference to depreciation alone. The President had therefore erred in law in limiting reasonable reinstatement solely by reference to diminution in value and the cross-appeal was allowed in that respect.

Appeal by the Coal Authority dismissed; cross-appeal by the owners of 43 New Station Road allowed in part. The Court upheld the Lands Tribunal President's approach to measuring depreciation under Sch.1 and his valuation conclusions, rejecting the Authority's challenge that blight had been unlawfully compensated; but allowed the cross-appeal on the ground that where the Authority had not validly elected to pay depreciation the statutory duty to execute remedial works remained and reasonable reinstatement could not be curtailed simply by reference to depreciation.

The case came on appeal from the Lands Tribunal. Permission to appeal was initially refused on paper by Carnwath L.J. but was later granted by Hale and Carnwath L.JJ on 31 July 2002 on grounds of general significance. The Lands Tribunal decision of Mr George Bartlett Q.C., President, was the subject of this appeal. (No neutral citation for the Lands Tribunal decision is provided in the judgment.)