PHRJ Newbold & Ors v The Coal Authority [2013] EWCA Civ 584 (23 May 2013)

PHRJ Newbold & Ors v The Coal Authority [2013] EWCA Civ 584 (23 May 2013)

The damage notices, though naming only Paul Newbold as claimant, were on their proper construction given by all three Newbold brothers as owners, as was apparent from the notices and accompanying documents. The statutory requirements for particulars were adequately met, and any defects did not invalidate the notices. Estoppel could not operate to validate a notice given by a person without the requisite statutory interest.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Civ 584
Parties
Claimant/respondent: PHRJ Newbold; Claimant/respondent: MCTJ Newbold; Claimant/respondent: GRWJ Newbold; Appellant/defendant: The Coal Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Upper Tribunal (lands Chamber) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Coal Mining Subsidence, Statutory Notice Requirements, Agency, Estoppel, Remedial Obligations, Limitation Periods
Property Law Statutory Interpretation Administrative Law Coal Mining Subsidence Statutory Notice Requirements Agency Estoppel Remedial Obligations +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PHRJ Newbold

Claimant/respondent

MCTJ Newbold

Claimant/respondent

GRWJ Newbold

Claimant/respondent

The Coal Authority

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Upper Tribunal (lands Chamber) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether damage notices under the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 were valid when given by one co-owner rather than all co-owners
  2. 2 Whether defects in the statutory particulars of the notices invalidated them
  3. 3 Whether estoppel or legitimate expectation could validate otherwise defective notices

Ratio Decidendi

The damage notices, though naming only Paul Newbold as claimant, were on their proper construction given by all three Newbold brothers as owners, as was apparent from the notices and accompanying documents. The statutory requirements for particulars were adequately met, and any defects did not invalidate the notices. Estoppel could not operate to validate a notice given by a person without the requisite statutory interest.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The order of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) is affirmed; the damage notices dated 1 February 2007 and 3 August 2009 are valid for the purposes of section 3 of the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991.