Stanley & Anor v Rawlinson & Anor

In a negligence claim alleging that neighbouring works caused an old boundary wall to collapse in high winds, causation must be proved on the balance of probabilities. The occurrence of works and the fact of high winds do not, without evidence of causal significance, establish liability. The court must assess the actual works, the structure’s pre-existing condition, and site-specific wind effects; wind speeds recorded at a remote station may carry little evidential value where direction and local topography matter. An expert owes an overriding duty to assist the court, but may properly advise the client about evidence needed to meet the opposing case.

Mr and Mrs Stanley claimed damages in negligence from their neighbours, Mr and Mrs Rawlinson, alleging that earth and other works beside the boundary wall had weakened it before its collapse on 6/7 October 2001. They issued a claim in the Ipswich County Court on 5 October 2007. After a three-day trial in December 2009, His Honour Judge Moloney QC found that only modest hand groundwork had occurred, with no piling or compaction, and that it was unlikely to have materially affected the wall. He found that the collapse was probably due to high winds, age and pre-existing condition.

On appeal, the claimants challenged the factual and expert-evidence findings, relied on earlier wind records, sought to adduce a meteorological report, and raised an issue concerning the easement of support. The central issue was whether the trial judge had been entitled to reject the alleged causal link.

Appeal dismissed. Tomlinson LJ gave the substantive judgment, with Baron J and Laws LJ agreeing.

1. The claimants had to establish on the balance of probabilities that the works materially increased the pressure or other forces affecting the wall and contributed to its collapse. The judge was entitled to find that the works involved only modest hand removal and spreading of material, without piling, importation of fill or compaction. Given the wall’s age, existing lean, vegetation and poor condition, high wind was a sufficient explanation for the collapse.
2. The trial judge was entitled to evaluate the competing expert evidence and to use it in assessing whether the works were materially significant. His conclusion was principled and supported by the evidence. The fact that the wall had previously survived stronger winds did not compel a finding that the works caused its collapse.
3. Wind-speed records from a station approximately twenty miles away did not establish the forces affecting this wall. Wind direction and local topography could make conditions highly localised. The proposed report of Dr Dorling confirmed, rather than undermined, that conclusion.
4. The criticism of the claimants’ expert for acknowledging a duty to his client was misplaced. Under Civil Procedure Rules 35.3 and Practice Direction 35, paragraph 4.1, an expert owes an overriding duty to assist the court, but also owes reasonable skill and care to those instructing him. Advising a client about evidence needed to meet the opposing case was not inherently improper.
5. The fresh evidence was refused because it could not have had an important influence on the result and did not assist in showing that the trial judge’s approach was flawed. It could also have been obtained with reasonable diligence before trial. The court therefore did not need to determine the continuing scope of the principles in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489. The point concerning Dalton v Angus [1881] 6 App Cas 740 and the easement of support did not arise.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the appeal and refused the proposed fresh evidence.
• Chelmsford County Court: after a trial before His Honour Judge Moloney QC in December 2009, found that the neighbouring works were unlikely to have materially affected the wall and that its collapse was probably caused by high winds, age and pre-existing condition.
• Ipswich County Court: the claimants issued a negligence claim on 5 October 2007 seeking the cost of rebuilding the wall.