Lodge Holes Colliery Co. v. Corporation of Wednesbury [1908] UKHL 690
( Present — The Lord Chancellor (Loreburn) , Lords Macnaghten and Atkinson .)
46 SLR 690Lodge Holes Colliery Company v. Corporation of Wednesbury.( On Appeal from the Court of Appeal in England .)
Subject_ Reparation — Measure of Damages — Mines — Highway Subsidence — Restoration of Level. Facts:Where the level of a road has been lowered by subsidence above a mine, the highway authority has no absolute right to restore the original level and recover the whole expense as damages without considering whether the road could be more cheaply restored at the new level so as to be equally commodious.Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal ( Collins, M.R. , Cozens-Hardy and Farwell, L.JJ. ). The facts appear sufficiently from the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, pronounced after their Lordships had taken time for consideration.Lord Chancellor (Loreburn) —This is an action by the local authority against mineowners whose workings have caused a road to subside, and there is no dispute except as to the amount of the damages. The local authority restored the level by an embankment and retaining walls at a cost of about £400, and the mineowners said that this was quite unnecessary, and that an equally commodious road could be made for £65 at the sunken level. They paid £80 into Court. Jelf, J., found this sum sufficient to make an equally commodious road, and so judgment was entered for the defendants. On appeal judgment was entered for the plaintiffs for £400. Now I think that a court of justice ought to be very slow in countenancing any attempt by a wrongdoer to make captious objections to the methods by which those whom he has injured have sought to repair the injury. When a road is let down, or land let down, those entitled to have it repaired find themselves saddled with a business which they did not seek, and for which they are not to blame. Errors of judgment may be committed in this as in other affairs of life. It would be intolerable if persons so situated could be called to account by the wrongdoer in a minute scrutiny of the expense, as though they were his agents, for any mistake or miscalculation, provided that they act honestly and reasonably. In judging whether they have acted reasonably, I think that a Court should be very indulgent and always bear in mind who was to blame. Accordingly, if the case of the plaintiffs had been that they had acted on the advice of competent advisers in the work of reparation, and had chosen the course which they were advised was necessary, it would go a very long way with me; it would go the whole way, unless itPage: 691 ↓
Lords Macnaghten and Atkinson concurred.Judgment appealed from reversed.Counsel for Appellants— Sir R. Finlay, K.C.— Shearman K.C.— Disturnal. Agents— Bower, Cotton, & Bower, Solicitors, for Thursfield & Messiter, Wednesbury, Solicitors.Counsel for Respondents— Macmorran, K.C.— Hugo Young, K.C.— M'Cardie. Agents— Sharpe, Pritchard & Company, Solicitors, for Thomas Jones, Town Clerk, Wednesbury.