Langley & Ors v Coal Authority

Under the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991, depreciation is measured by comparing the market value of the particular damaged property with its value if unaffected by the damage. General blight affecting undamaged neighbouring properties through apprehension of future damage is not depreciation caused by the damage. The court left unresolved whether special blight affecting the damaged property must also be excluded, but the appeal failed on the evidence in any event. Where there is no valid election to pay depreciation, the statutory duty to carry out remedial works is not capped by diminution in value. Reasonable practicability focuses primarily on feasibility. Cost is relevant only to prevent extravagant reinstatement.

The Authority appealed against an award by the President of the Lands Tribunal concerning seven High Street properties damaged by a landslip caused by mining subsidence. The principal issues were the assessment of depreciation under the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991, including the treatment of blight and apprehended future damage, and whether the Authority had lost its right to elect for depreciation payments.

The owners of 43 New Station Road cross-appealed against an award limited to £10,000 for restoration of a substantially destroyed garden. They argued that the Authority’s remedial duty required reasonable reinstatement rather than works assessed by reference to the property’s diminution in value.

1. Disposition. The Authority’s appeal was dismissed. The Cordery cross-appeal was allowed.
2. For the purposes of sections 10 and 11(3) of the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991, the statutory comparison is between the value of the particular property in its damaged state and the value it would have had at the relevant time if unaffected by the damage. The general blighting effect of apprehension of future landslip affecting undamaged properties was therefore excluded.
3. Peter Gibson LJ held that, read as a whole, the President’s decision did not compensate general blight. Any excessive language concerning fear of future damage did not affect the depreciation figures, which were supported by accepted evidence. Mance LJ reserved his position on so-called special blight. Hooper J shared those reservations, but agreed that the appeal failed.
4. Alternatively, even if special blight had to be excluded, the Authority had not shown that remedial costs exceeded the depreciation amount by at least 20 per cent for the purposes of section 10(2)(a). The relevant valuation assumptions were artificial, and there was no evidence of less costly feasible works.
5. On the cross-appeal, where no valid election under section 10 had been made, the Authority’s duty under section 6(2) was not limited by the property’s diminution in value. Reasonable practicability concerned primarily whether the works were feasible. Cost was relevant only to prevent an extravagant method of making good the damage. The owners were entitled to reasonable restoration of the terraces and other garden features. The reasoning was consistent with Ruxley Electronics Ltd. v Forsyth [1996] AC 344.
6. The court did not decide the Authority’s separate challenge based on McAreavey v Coal Authority (2000) 80 P&CR 41, because the first ground disposed of the main appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the Authority’s appeal and allowed the Cordery cross-appeal in [2003] EWCA Civ 204.
• Lands Tribunal: awarded remedial relief and depreciation-related sums for the High Street properties and awarded £10,000 for restoration of the garden at 43 New Station Road.