PHRJ Newbold & Ors v The Coal Authority

A statutory notice must be construed against the background known to its recipient and in the light of the governing legislation. A mistaken name does not invalidate the notice where both the mistake and the intended giver are objectively clear.

A damage notice under the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 is valid if it adequately supplies the particulars required by the applicable regulations. An inaccuracy or omission is not automatically fatal. Whether strict, adequate or no compliance is required depends on the wording, subject matter and purpose of the requirement, together with the actual or possible effect of non-compliance.

The freehold owners of Wentworth Woodhouse served two notices claiming that coal-mining subsidence had damaged the property. Each form named one brother as the claimant but also identified the Newbold brothers collectively as the freehold owners. The Coal Authority rejected liability and later contended that the notices were invalid because they had not been given by all the owners and contained inaccurate or incomplete prescribed particulars.

The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), in [2012] UKUT 20 (LC), declared both notices valid. The Authority appealed. The principal issues were who had given the notices, whether the prescribed particulars had been supplied adequately, and whether the Upper Tribunal could decide the case on a construction advanced only in closing submissions.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Upper Tribunal had been entitled to consider the owners’ construction of the notices despite its late introduction. The Authority identified neither evidence it might otherwise have called nor questions it had been prevented from asking. The construction of the notices raised a question of law reviewable by the Court of Appeal.
2. A notice is a communication and must objectively be understood as having been given by the person said to give it. Where an incorrect name appears, the notice can be attributed to the intended giver only if the mistake and the intended identity are obvious to the recipient. The governing statutory or contractual requirements and the parties’ relevant background knowledge may inform that inquiry.
3. Read as a whole and against the statutory scheme, both damage notices were given by the three brothers as freehold owners. Although Paul Newbold alone appeared in the claimant box, the attached ownership note and other answers identified the Newbold brothers collectively as the owners. Their consultants dealt with and dispatched the notices with their authority. Subsequent correspondence could not alter the notices’ meaning when received.
4. The prescribed particulars did not impose an invariably strict condition of validity. The proper approach is first to construe the particular statutory or contractual requirement. Its wording, subject matter, background, purpose and the actual or possible effect of non-compliance determine whether strict compliance, adequate compliance or something less is sufficient. Parliament could not sensibly have intended every inaccuracy in the particulars prescribed under section 3(2) of the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 to invalidate a notice.
5. The notices adequately identified the property, damage and freehold owners. The Authority was able to respond to and investigate the claims. The inaccuracies and omissions therefore did not invalidate them.
6. The court did not decide whether one joint owner could independently give an effective section 3 notice. Authorities concerning notices which disposed of or terminated property interests were distinguishable because a section 3 notice merely satisfies a precondition to statutory liability.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The Coal Authority’s appeal was dismissed. The declarations that both damage notices were valid were upheld: [2013] EWCA Civ 584.
2. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): The President determined a preliminary issue and declared that the notices dated 1 February 2007 and 3 August 2009 were valid damage notices: [2012] UKUT 20 (LC).