MRS VIOLET ANN HICKS v The Coal Authority
Decision date: 3 September 2014
Neutral citation: [2014] UKUT 388 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This is an appeal of a subsidence claim by Mrs Hicks against the Coal Authority arising from long-wall mining near her historic farmhouse, with significant cracking first alleged in 2007. The Tribunal preferred the claimant's experts on external cracking and found on the balance of probabilities that much of the external brick skin and some internal damage was caused by mining subsidence, apportioned liability for mixed-cause defects, and awarded specified sums to insurers and the claimant. The respondent failed to discharge the burden under s.40(2) to show the damage was not due to subsidence, and the Tribunal allowed investigatory costs and apportioned repair costs accordingly.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The judgment applies that where evidence indicates damage "may" be subsidence damage, the statutory burden under s.40(2) shifts to the respondent to prove it is not subsidence damage, and failure to do so supports a finding of subsidence causation; where damage has mixed causes a percentage apportionment of liability for repair costs is an appropriate remedy; and s.38(2) can permit recovery of reasonable investigatory and preparatory costs even absent remedial works by the authority.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The notes record observations that expert omissions (such as failing to consider relevant data or withholding commercially sensitive material) can undermine an expert's utility to the tribunal, and that credibility findings should not be advanced without giving a witness a fair opportunity in cross‑examination to address allegations of dishonesty.