The absence of a provision for compensation is almost conclusive that the common law obligation is to continue1, and the inadequacy or inappropriateness of the compensation, if applied to damage by subsidence, is cogent evidence that subsidence was not contemplated2. Thus a provision for a yearly payment to the surface occupiers for damage and spoil of ground during the time of working cannot apply to subsidence damage, for such damage injures the owner, and may not occur until the workings have ceased
**Trials are provided to all LexisPSL and LexisLibrary content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and millions of others like it, sign-in to LexisLibrary or register for a free trial.
EXISTING USER? SIGN IN
TAKE A FREE TRIAL
0330 161 1234