Dalton v Henry Angus & Co

Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiffs owned a building that had stood for more than twenty years on land adjoining property controlled by Defendant public commissioners. In 1849 the premises were altered from a dwelling-house into a coach-factory; the structural changes included the erection of a substantial brick pier that transferred considerable weight to the boundary soil. In or about 1876–77 the commissioners engaged Defendant contractor to excavate their land in execution of authorised works. The excavations removed lateral support, causing the Plaintiffs’ building to subside and partially collapse.

Plaintiffs sued both the commissioners and the contractor for damages. At trial the judge directed a verdict for Plaintiffs, holding that a building which has enjoyed support from neighbouring land for twenty years acquires an indefeasible right to that support. The Court of Appeal affirmed, but gave Defendants the option of a new trial; they elected not to exercise that option and appealed to the House of Lords.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether twenty years’ uninterrupted enjoyment of lateral support confers on a building an easement entitling it to continued support from adjacent soil, without the need to prove an express or implied grant or the neighbour’s knowledge.
2. Whether, on the evidence, the Plaintiffs’ enjoyment of support was sufficiently “open” to found a prescriptive right, or whether factual questions should have been left for the jury.
3. Whether the commissioners, having employed an independent contractor, remained liable in tort for damage caused by the contractor’s excavations.

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

Delivering multiple opinions, the House reasoned as follows:

• The common law grants every landowner a natural right to support for soil; support for buildings is not natural but may be acquired by prescription or grant. Long, open, peaceful and uninterrupted enjoyment for twenty years is sufficient to raise an irrebuttable presumption of a grant.
• The enjoyment need only alert a reasonable neighbour that support is being taken; detailed knowledge of structural load is unnecessary. Plaintiffs’ factory, with obvious external alterations and a visible brick pier, satisfied this requirement; no evidence suggested concealment or secret loading.
• Once acquired, the easement of support is proprietary, identical in character to natural support, and protected in the same manner. Liability arises when the building is actually damaged by excavations, not when soil is first removed.
• The commissioners could not delegate to an independent contractor a duty that was inherently hazardous to adjoining property. Both commissioners and contractor were therefore jointly liable.
• No factual issue remained for a jury: Defendants offered no contradictory evidence on enjoyment, and the only question was the legal effect of admitted facts. The trial judge rightly directed a verdict for Plaintiffs.

Holding and Implications

Appeal dismissed; judgment for Plaintiffs affirmed with costs.

Consequences:

• A building standing for twenty years gains an easement of lateral support from adjoining soil without needing proof of neighbour’s consent or actual notice.
• Owners excavating near such buildings must provide adequate substitute support; failure yields strict liability once damage occurs.
• Employers remain liable for inherently risky works carried out by contractors.
• The decision consolidates English law on prescriptive support, aligning it with the doctrine applicable to ancient lights and providing certainty for urban development.