Mark Widdows v The Coal Authority
Decision date: 22 January 2018
Neutral citation: [2018] UKUT 23 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
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: medium
This appeal concerned whether the Coal Authority’s schedule of remedial works for mining subsidence damage to 15 Bayfield met the requirements of section 6(2) of the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991. The Upper Tribunal held that the schedule produced on 13 October 2017, as amended by the minor revisions of 30 October 2017, satisfied the statutory requirements and declared that the amended schedule was the remedial action to be taken (implementation to follow unless a proposed sale to the Authority proceeded).
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: medium
From the judgment as recorded in the notes, a schedule will satisfy section 6 where it specifies the necessary remedial works and associated information (including plans, photographs and costings) so as to meet the statutory content requirements; further, minor amendments made to a schedule before determination can cure earlier deficiencies and render the schedule compliant.
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 obiter comments that wider issues such as possible estate redevelopment or long‑term diminution in value were not relevant to the section 6 assessment, and that cost details in a schedule may be of limited relevance where the responsible authority elects to carry out the works itself.
Warning
The chunk contains substantial repetition and formatting artifacts which made extraction of a concise chronology and precise statutory cross-references somewhat noisy. The provided notes contain repetition and formatting artifacts and may be materially noisy or incomplete.