Mrs Kathleen Roberts v The Coal Authority
Decision date: 28 January 2011
Neutral citation: [2011] UKUT 38 (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
Mrs Roberts claimed a Regulation 7 entitlement to compensation for inconvenience from remedial works carried out by the Coal Authority after garden subsidence. The Tribunal found no compliant section 6 schedule had been served because the documents did not state, for each remedial item, the cost the Authority considered reasonable, and therefore Regulation 6(1)(b) (and so 6(1)(d) for the claim) were not satisfied. The reference was dismissed and no costs were ordered.
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
A section 6 schedule must both identify the remedial works and, for each item, state the cost the Authority considers reasonable; absence of those cost particulars means the schedule requirement in s6(2) is not met and, without a compliant schedule coming into effect, no entitlement to compensation under Regulation 7 can arise.
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 Tribunal observed that, if a compliant schedule had been served, the relevant remedial works for a Regulation 7 claim would be limited to works within the claimant's property rather than works on other land; it also noted that the Authority’s provisional £2,000 figure (had it been a compliant schedule) would have fallen below the £3,000 threshold in Regulation 6(1)(c).