Deryck Edward Wright Iris Dorothy Wright Aviva Insurance UK Ltd v Horsham District Council

Decision date: 22 August 2011

Neutral citation: [2011] UKUT 319 (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 case concerns a s.203(1)(a) claim after Horsham District Council refused consent to fell three oak trees subject to a TPO, and the owners later carried out underpinning for subsidence damage. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that roots from one or more of the three oaks caused the 2003 subsidence, that underpinning was a natural and probable and foreseeable consequence of the council's refusal, and that heave risk did not make underpinning necessary if the trees had been removed. The tribunal awarded £23,251.25 for underpinning plus £750 for distress and inconvenience, together with costs and interest.

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

Where a TPO refusal is challenged under s.203(1)(a), if the evidence shows on the balance of probabilities that protected trees caused subsidence, remedial works that were reasonably foreseeable at the time of refusal can constitute compensable loss; causation in such claims is to be assessed on the balance of probabilities from the available evidence.

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 commented that it may be sensible for tribunals to consider evidence arising after the refusal when assessing causation and foreseeability, but did not finally decide that procedural point. The judgment also contained observations on distinguishing heave from recovery and on the limited utility of crack monitoring and level distortion surveys.