Mark Widdows v The Coal Authority

A schedule of remedial works under section 6(2) of the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 must identify the works necessary, so far as reasonably practicable, to make good mining-subsidence damage to the reasonable satisfaction of interested persons, and state reasonable costs for each item. Where a requested variation is not agreed, the Tribunal may determine whether the schedule has effect subject to that variation.

The Tribunal will uphold an amended schedule where the accompanying plans, photographs and costings adequately specify the remedial works required. A claimant’s concerns about the wider redevelopment of an estate and potential future diminution in value do not form part of the section 6(2) question concerning the affected property’s schedule of works.

The claimant was the tenant and part-owner of a semi-detached dwelling damaged by mining subsidence. The respondent accepted a remedial obligation and proposed demolition, ground remediation and rebuilding if an agreed purchase did not proceed.

The respondent served revised schedules of remedial works. The parties ultimately agreed that the latest schedule adequately covered rebuilding, but the claimant sought additional assurances about redevelopment of the wider estate and the future value of the rebuilt dwelling. The respondent declined those requests and referred its proposed variation to the Tribunal under section 6(6) of the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991.

The sole issue was whether the amended schedule met section 6(2).

1. The Tribunal determined that the amended schedule of remedial works should have effect. The schedule produced on 13 October 2017, together with its plans, photographs and costings and the amendments of 30 October 2017, fully satisfied section 6(2) of the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991.

2. The statutory inquiry concerned whether the schedule adequately specified the remedial works necessary to make good the subsidence damage, so far as reasonably practicable, and the reasonable costs of those works. The amended documents did so.

3. The claimant’s proposed additional terms concerned redevelopment elsewhere on the estate and possible long-term diminution in the value of the rebuilt property. Those matters were not relevant to the section 6(2) schedule for this property.

4. Although the parties agreed that the stated costs had no practical relevance if the respondent itself executed the repairs, the schedule was nevertheless determined in its amended form of 30 October 2017.

not stated in the judgment.