Some years ago, Mr Ward from Rugeley took on the Local Council through the courts, and the case has since become a Test Case for Law Students throughout the country...

Ward v Cannock Chase DC [1985]

The plaintiff lived in a house in a row of terraced houses. The other houses in the row were owned by the council and let to tenants but, as a result of council policy to develop the area for industrial purposes, the houses were not relet or maintained as they fell vacant. Many of the houses suffered damage as a result of the acts of vandals and thieves, including the wholesale removal of tiles, bricks and timber. In October 1982, as a result of vandalism, the rear wall of the house which adjoined the plaintiff's house collapsed, causing damage to the roof of the plaintiff's house. In November the council agreed to repair the damage caused to the plaintiff's house, but it failed to carry out the repairs. In December the council temporarily rehoused the plaintiff and his family. Vandals broke into the plaintiff's property and removed parts of the building. As a result the repairs to the house were not carried out and it rapidly deteriorated until by December 1983 it was beyond repair. Between December 1982 and March 1984 thieves removed various chattels from the house and the plaintiff's adjoining land. The council admitted liability for negligence. It was held in the Chancery Division:

(1) The test of whether an intervening act of an independent third party made damage suffered by the plaintiff too remote for the original tortfeasor to be liable for it had variously been expressed. Applying the test of reasonable foreseeability, it was reasonably foreseeable that if the adjoining house were to collapse serious damage might be caused to the plaintiff's house, that if serious damage were caused to the plaintiff's house it might have to be vacated until it was repaired, that if the necessary repairs were not carried out expeditiously the house would become unoccupied, and that if the house were to remain unoccupied for any length of time vandals and thieves would be likely to break in. Furthermore, there was a sufficient connection for remoteness of damage purposes between the council's breach of duty, the plaintiff's house becoming unoccupied and the damage caused thereto by vandals and thieves. Accordingly, whatever test was applied there was a chain of causation leading from the council's breach of duty to the damage to the plaintiff's house and such damage was not too remote to be recoverable.

(2) In regard to the damage to and theft of the plaintiff's chattels, the council was under a duty of care to keep the adjoining property in a safe condition because failure to do so risked damage to the fabric of the plaintiff's house rather than because of the risk that otherwise vandals might damage or steal the plaintiff's chattels. Such damage or theft was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the house becoming unoccupied because it was to be expected that the plaintiff would have taken steps to safeguard his chattels. The plaintiff was therefore not entitled to damages for the damage to or theft of his chattels.