Coal Authority v Trustees of the Nostell Trust & Ors

Permission to appeal an arbitration award on questions of law under Arbitration Act 1996, section 69, requires the statutory threshold to be met. The question must substantially affect the parties’ rights, have been a matter for the arbitrator, and satisfy the applicable test of general public importance with serious doubt, or obvious error where the issue lacks that importance.

For listed buildings damaged by mining subsidence, Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991, section 19 requires restoration to the former condition so as to maintain the building’s character as one of special interest. It does not impose a separate requirement for superior durability, quality or expense. Emergency works under section 12 require qualifying urgency and reasonable notice and inspection facilities.

The Coal Authority sought permission to appeal on nine questions of law arising from an arbitration award concerning subsidence damage to the listed Stable Block at Nostell Priory.

The arbitrator awarded £191,164.65 for future remedial works under section 19 of the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 and £12,500 for emergency works under section 12. The Authority argued that the arbitrator had failed to make necessary statutory findings, had applied an excessively demanding standard to listed-building repairs, and had inadequately addressed the requirements for emergency works.

The central issues were whether the statutory conditions for permission under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 were met and whether the award was open to serious doubt or obvious error.

1. Permission refused. The Authority’s application for permission to appeal was dismissed.
2. Under section 69(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996, the applicant had to show that the issue substantially affected the parties’ rights, was a question the arbitrator was asked to determine, met the applicable public-importance and error threshold, and made it just and proper for the court to intervene. The section 19 issues concerned the substance of the arbitration and were of general public importance, but the award was not open to serious doubt.
3. Section 19(1) required proof of three matters: that the property was an ancient monument or listed building; that it was affected by subsidence damage; and that its character as property of special interest was or might be affected by that damage. Although the arbitrator had not expressed the third finding in a separate formula, his reasoning showed that he had made the necessary finding.
4. Under section 19(2), the relevant works were those reasonably practicable and in the public interest which restored the property to its former condition while maintaining its character as one of special interest. References in the award to thoroughness and durability did not enlarge that statutory test. They explained why detailed repairs, rather than cosmetic repairs, were required in the particular circumstances.
5. The section 12 issues did not satisfy the permission threshold. The value of the emergency-works claim was £12,500 and the complaints principally concerned findings arising from the particular facts. The arbitrator was entitled to find that the works were emergency repairs, that the Authority had sufficient awareness to satisfy the notice requirement in section 12(2), and that apportionment between the three Nostell parties was a matter for those parties rather than the Authority.

First-instance application for permission to appeal an arbitration award. The High Court refused permission and dismissed the application.