Coope & Ors v Ward & Anor

An adjoining landowner may owe a measured duty of care for a known or reasonably foreseeable hazard arising from the condition of land, even where the hazard arose without fault and no easement of support exists. The duty is independent of property law and depends on knowledge, foreseeability, ability to abate the risk, and what is reasonable in the occupier’s circumstances. After a collapse, the post-collapse condition of land may itself constitute a hazard. However, it is not just and reasonable to order an adjoining owner to fund an unspecified engineering solution, particularly where the collapse resulted from loading on the other owner’s land and the payer receives no comparable benefit. A measured duty should not be declared in the abstract without an established breach.

The Coopes owned 62 Armstead Road and the Wards owned 41 Orchard Lane. Part of a boundary wall collapsed after heavy snowfall, and soil from the Wards’ land fell into the Coopes’ gardens.

The Sheffield County Court found that neither party was personally at fault. It held that both sets of owners owed measured duties of care after the collapse and ordered the Coopes to make a rateable contribution towards an engineering solution, subject to a cap.

The Coopes appealed. The central issues were whether a measured duty could arise without fault or an easement of support, and whether the order requiring a contribution was fair, sufficiently specific and legally justified.

Appeal allowed. Lord Justice Christopher Clarke delivered the leading judgment, with Lord Justice Bean and Lady Justice Arden agreeing. Paragraphs 2–5 of the county court order were set aside. The counterclaim was formally dismissed, with written submissions invited on costs.

1. The court confirmed that a measured duty of care may arise in negligence in relation to a natural or man-made hazard, even where the hazard was not created by the occupier. Following Goldman v Hargrave [1967] AC 645 and Leakey v National Trust [1980] QB 485, the relevant considerations include knowledge of the hazard, foreseeability of harm, ability to abate it, and what it is reasonable to expect of the occupier in the circumstances.
2. The duty is governed by negligence and nuisance principles rather than the law of easements. The absence or extinguishment of an easement of support therefore does not prevent a duty arising. Duke of Westminster & Ors v Guild [1985] AC 688 did not preclude such a duty, given the development of the modern law and the materially different circumstances.
3. The post-collapse condition of land may itself constitute a hazard. A lack of support from adjoining land, and the risk of further collapse, can give rise to measured duties on both sides even where neither owner caused the original collapse. The reasoning in Holbeck Hall Hotel Ltd v Scarborough Borough Council [2000] QB 836 and Rees v Skerrett [2001] EWCA Civ 760 supported that conclusion.
4. The scope of any duty must be fair, just and reasonable. It was not just and reasonable to require the Coopes to contribute to an unspecified engineering solution. The collapse resulted from the accumulated loading on the Wards’ land; the Coopes had no control over that cause and derived no comparable benefit from it. The court also lacked sufficient clarity about the proposed works, their location, their cost and the effect of the Stanilands’ settlement. The equal cost-sharing approach in Abbahall Ltd v Smee [2003] 1 WLR 1472 was distinguishable because that case concerned a roof serving both properties.
5. The setting aside of the declaration did not establish that the Coopes could owe no obligations. Depending on a concrete proposal, obligations might include allowing access, removing impediments or permitting propping. But it was inappropriate to declare a measured duty in the abstract without an established breach.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal allowed on 28 January 2015 under [2015] EWCA Civ 30. Paragraphs 2–5 of the Sheffield County Court order were set aside and the counterclaim was formally dismissed.
• Sheffield County Court: HHJ Robinson, following a hearing in July 2013, held that both adjoining owners owed measured duties of care after the wall collapse and ordered the Coopes to make a capped rateable contribution towards an engineering solution.