Hall v Environment Agency

A statutory compensation scheme may be the exclusive remedy for injury caused by authorised works, including injury amounting to negligence or nuisance. The question depends on construction of the statute and whether the alleged injury falls within the statutory scheme.

The relevant inquiry is whether the act causing injury was authorised, whether injury was contemplated, whether the injury was of the contemplated kind, and whether compensation was provided. Ordinary common-law rights remain where the injury results from an unauthorised negligent act or an unintended occurrence caused by negligence. Leaving a culvert roof open for an extended period, allowing flooding, was capable of falling outside the scheme.

The claimant sought damages from the Environment Agency for flooding of his property after a section of a culvert roof was removed during works forming part of the Morpeth Flood Alleviation Scheme. He alleged that the Agency negligently left the opening exposed during heavy rainfall.

The works were undertaken under Water Resources Act 1991, section 165, with compensation governed by section 177 and Schedule 21, paragraph 5. The Agency applied to strike out the claim, arguing that the statutory compensation scheme was exclusive and that the claim belonged in the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). The issue was whether the pleaded negligence claim was excluded by that scheme.

1. The application to strike out was dismissed. The court assumed, for the application, that the pleaded negligence and causation allegations would be proved. The question was treated as one of law rather than by applying the real-prospect test.

2. The statutory scheme had to be construed to determine whether it expressly or by necessary implication covered common-law claims. Paragraph 5 of Schedule 21 to the Water Resources Act 1991 was general and did not clearly embrace every claim in negligence or nuisance.

3. The court applied the approach in Marriage v East Norfolk Rivers Catchment Board [1950] I KB 284. The relevant questions were whether the act causing injury was authorised, whether the statute contemplated that its exercise might cause injury, whether the injury was of the contemplated kind, and whether the statute provided compensation for it.

4. Common-law rights remained where the injury resulted from a negligent act which the authority was not authorised to do, or from an unintended occurrence brought about by negligence in carrying out the authorised work. A strong case was also required where the operation was so capricious, unreasonable or manifestly dangerous that no rational authority would have undertaken it.

5. Removing the culvert roof was an authorised and integral part of the works. However, leaving the culvert exposed for two weeks, despite the known risk of surcharging and flooding, was neither a necessary nor inevitable part of those works. The flooding was an unintended consequence of the negligent manner in which the works were carried out and fell outside the relevant limits of the compensation scheme.

6. The claim could therefore proceed as an action in negligence in the High Court. The court noted that it could not transfer the action directly to the Upper Tribunal under the applicable procedural arrangements.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.