Newbold & Ors v The Coal Authority

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns a notice of reference relating to compensation claims under the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 and associated regulations. The dispute involves the validity of damage notices issued in respect of subsidence damage to land and premises at a specified estate in South Yorkshire. The claimants are three brothers with a close and trusting relationship managing their property and commercial affairs collectively but acting individually as convenient. The procedural context includes consideration of statutory requirements for damage notices, particularly the necessity for certain particulars to be included and whether strict or substantial compliance is required. The case was heard before the President of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) in London over several days in July and August 2011.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the statutory requirements for damage notices under the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 and the Coal Mining Subsidence (Notices and Claims) Regulations 1991 have been fulfilled by strict or substantial compliance.
2. Whether any non-compliance with statutory requirements is capable of being waived, and if so, whether it has been or should be waived in this case.
3. What are the consequences of any non-compliance if it is not capable of being waived or is not waived.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court structured its analysis around three central questions: whether the statutory requirements for damage notices were fulfilled by substantial rather than strict compliance; whether any non-compliance could be waived; and the consequences if non-compliance was not waived. The court examined the specific statutory provisions and the required particulars for damage notices, including claimant identity, property details, legal interests, damage particulars, and inspection arrangements. The court considered the nature of the relationship between the claimants, noting their informal but trusting arrangement in managing their property affairs, which influenced the approach to formal notices. The court reviewed relevant case law emphasizing the balance between strict adherence to statutory formality and practical substantial compliance. It also considered the scope for waiver, including the grant of extensions of time as a form of waiver. The court concluded that the notices in question were valid, having met the necessary statutory requirements either strictly or by substantial compliance, and that any non-compliance was either waived or not of sufficient consequence to invalidate the notices.

Holding and Implications

The court held that the damage notices issued under the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 and the associated regulations were valid. The notices complied with the statutory requirements either by strict or substantial compliance, and any non-compliance was either waived or did not invalidate the notices.

The direct effect of this decision is that the claimants' damage notices stand as valid for the purposes of compensation claims related to mining subsidence. The opinion does not establish new legal precedent but applies existing principles on statutory compliance and waiver to the facts of this case.