Valerie Edna Wood v The Coal Authority

Decision date: 5 July 2010

Neutral citation: [2010] UKUT 193 (LC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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 appeal concerned whether damage to 48 Stocksfield Avenue was caused by coal‑mining subsidence. The Tribunal held that section 40(2) of the 1991 Act was engaged so the onus shifted to the Coal Authority, and on the balance of probabilities preferred the Authority’s expert evidence that the damage resulted from collapse settlement of made ground triggered by leaking drains, not from mining subsidence. The claimant’s claim was dismissed and the Coal Authority awarded costs.

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 decision identifies that a limited amount of evidence can be sufficient to engage s.40(2) of the 1991 Act, thereby shifting the evidential burden to the Coal Authority to prove the damage was not caused by mining subsidence; where expert opinions conflict, the Tribunal may decide on the balance of probabilities in light of material factual indicators (for example absence of expected surface depression and absence of overlying coal measures in boreholes) that point away from a mining‑collapse explanation.

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 judgment records, as non‑binding observations, that careful site investigation (notably cored boreholes and reliable level monitoring tied to remote datum) is important to resolve competing hypotheses about historical mining and made ground, and that leaking underground drains and inundation of made ground can trigger settlement capable of producing rapid, externally evident building damage.