Paul Henry Richard James Newbold & Ors v The Coal Authority

Damage caused by a later collapse or consolidation of historic mine workings, or by fault reactivation, may constitute subsidence damage if it results from withdrawal of support connected with coal mining. The passage of time and the intervening role of rebounding mine water do not necessarily remove the damage from the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991.

Under section 40(2), once the nature of the damage and the circumstances indicate that it may be subsidence damage, the Coal Authority bears the onus of proving that it is not. On the evidence in this case, however, historic mining damage was established but no renewed phase of mining-related movement after the 1980s was proved.

The claimants sought compensation from the Coal Authority for deterioration at Wentworth Woodhouse and associated structures. They alleged that rising mine water after the cessation of strategic pumping had caused renewed collapse or consolidation of old Parkgate seam workings and reactivation of the Wentworth fault.

The Tribunal tried preliminary issues concerning four areas: the north tower and quadrant, a line of damage through the mansion, the south terrace wall, and the camellia house. Earlier, the validity of the claimants’ damage notices had been confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Newbold v The Coal Authority [2013] EWCA Civ 584.

The central issue was whether the identified deterioration was subsidence damage within section 1(1) of the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991, and in particular whether a new mining-related phase of damage had occurred after the 1980s.

1. The preliminary issues were resolved in the Coal Authority’s favour. The Tribunal found extensive historic mining subsidence at Wentworth Woodhouse, including damage attributable to the Wentworth fault. It was not persuaded that coal mining had caused a renewed phase of subsidence damage after the 1980s.

2. Section 40(2) of the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 was engaged. The claimants had proved damage and had shown circumstances indicating that it may be subsidence damage. The Coal Authority therefore bore the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that the damage was not subsidence damage. The allocation of that onus was not decisive because the Tribunal was able to reach conclusions on the evidence.

3. The Tribunal accepted that groundwater rebound can, in principle, produce delayed mining-related movement by disturbing old workings or reactivating a geological fault. If that mechanism caused vertical or lateral withdrawal of support, the resulting damage could fall within section 1(1). Neither delay nor the role of water formerly excluded by mining pumping arrangements would necessarily take the damage outside the statutory definition.

4. On the facts, the evidence did not establish that this mechanism had caused recent damage. The Parkgate workings near the mansion were likely to have been substantially disrupted by later longwall mining in the Thorncliffe seam. The monitoring evidence showed general stability, and the suggested explanation that contemporaneous regional uplift concealed equal subsidence was implausible.

5. The north tower’s modest eastward lean was accepted as historic mining-related movement, but its remaining deterioration was more probably caused by long-term disrepair, water damage, decaying timbers and structural alterations. Historic fault movement caused the principal line of damage through the mansion, but no material recent reactivation was proved. The disputed damage to the camellia house and terrace wall was caused by deterioration, design, historic repairs and neglect rather than recent mining subsidence.

6. On costs, the claimants were ordered to pay 40% of the Coal Authority’s costs of the preliminary issues. The balance was reserved pending determination of the remaining reference concerning the stable block.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): In this reference, the Tribunal determined the preliminary issues and found no compensable renewed phase of subsidence damage: [2016] UKUT 432 (LC).
• Court of Appeal: Confirmed that the claimants’ two damage notices were valid in Newbold v The Coal Authority [2013] EWCA Civ 584.
• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): Earlier determined, as a preliminary issue, that both damage notices were valid; no citation is stated in the judgment.