625 1 QB. [courT OF APPEAL] LAMB anp ANoTHER v. CAMDEN LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL AND ANOTHER [1977 L. No, 1895] 1981 Feb. 4, 5, 6; Lord Denning M.R., Oliver March’ 18 and Watkins L.JJ. Damages — Remoteness — Foreseeability — Subsidence to house resulting from water escaping from damaged water main— House left unoccupied and unfurnished for repairs—Subse- quent occupation of house by squatters—Whether squatters’ damage too remote—Whether finding that squatting not “likely correct test The plaintiffs were the owners of a house in Hampstead which in 1972 had been let furnished to a tenant. In October 1973 while the defendants, the local council and their con- tractors, were replacing a sewer in the adjoining road, a water main was broken and the escaping water undérmined the foundations of the house. In consequence the house sub- sided, the walls cracked and the tenant moved out. In the summer of 1974, the first plaintiff made preliminary arrange- ments for the repair of the house, had the furniture put into store and in August 1974 returned to New York where she had been living. The house was left unoccupied and unfur- nished, In October 1974 squatters invaded the house. They were ejected:in January 1975 and the plaintiffs had boarding put up on the house. In the summer of 1975 the house was again occupied by a second invasion of a shifting population of squatters who were not ejected until May 1977 after they had done damage amounting to almost £30,000. On the plaintiffs’ claim for damages for negligence and nuisance against the defendants, liability in nuisance was admitted. On the issue of damages the official referee said that while he would be “ disposed, if it were relevant, to hold that squatting was at the material time a reasonably foreseeable risk” he was “ quite satisfied that no one familiar with the house and the locality would at any time between the acci- dent in the autumn of 1973 and the first invasion about a year later have said that squatting was likely” and he held that the damage caused by the squatters was too remote to form part of the damages payable by the defendants. On appeal by the’ plaintiffs: — Held, dismissing the appeal, that the test of the’ reason- able foreseeability of damage where acts of independent third parties or events or acts not connected with the original tortious act were concerned needed care in its application if the ambit of liability was not to be unreasonably extended (post, pp. 634G, 635p, 636a-c, 642E-F, 6432—6448, 646D-F); and that, accordingly, since (per Lord Denning M.R.) as a matter of policy it was the responsibility of the owner of the house to see that it was secured when left unoccupied: and unfurnished and to insure it against damage and theft, (per Oliver L.J.)\ the official referee’s finding was in effect a finding that it could not have been reasonably foreseen that. the breaking of the water main in 1973 would cause the tiouse626 Lamb y. Camden Council (C.A.) 1981] to be occupied by squatters in 1974 and 1975, (per Watkins L.J,) the squatters’ behaviour was of an outrageously anti- social and criminal kind, the damage done by the squatters was too remote and the official referee had reached the right conclusion although (per Lord Denning M.R. and Watkins L.J.) in considering whether squatting was “likely” he had applied the wrong test (post, pp. 634E-F, 636A-C, 637C-D, 643 B-E, 647D-F). Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engi- neering Co. Ltd. (The Wagon Mound) [1961] A.C. 388, P.C. and Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller ‘Steamship ‘Co, Pty. (The Wagon Mound (No. 2)) [1967] 1 A.C. 617, P.C. applied. Dictum of Lord Reid in Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. v. Home Office [1970] A.C. 1004, 1030, H.L.(E.) not applied. Per Lord Denning M.R. Duty, remoteness and causation are devices by which the courts limit the range of liability for negligence or nuisance (post, p. 636E). Per Watkins L.J. A robust and sensible approach to the question of remoteness will often produce an instinctive feeling that the event or act being weighed in the balance is too remote to sound in damages (post, p. 647B-C). The following cases are referred to in the judgments: Anns v. Merton London Borough Council [1978] A.C. 728; [1977] 2 W.LR. 1024; [1977] 2 All ER. 492, H.L.(Z,). Chomentowski v.'Red Garter Restaurant Pty. Ltd. (1970) 92 W.N. (NS.W.) 1070. Compania Financiera “Soleada” S.A. v. Hamoor Tanker Corporation Inc. (The Borag) [1981] 1 W.L.R. 274; [1981] 1 All E.R. 856, C.A. Czarnikow (C.) Ltd. v. Koufos [1969] 1 A.C. 350; [1967] 3 W.LR. 1491; [1967] 3 All E.R. 686, H.L.(E,). Dorset Yacht Co. Lid. v. Home Office [1969] 2 QB. 412; [1969] 2 W.L.R. 1008; [1969] 2 All E.R. 564, C.A.; [1970] A.C. 1004; [1970] 2 WLR. 1140; [1970] 2 All E.R. 294, HL). Dutton v. Bognor Regis Urban District Council [1972] 1 Q.B. 373; [1972] 2 WLR. 299; [1972] 1 AI E.R. 462, C.A. McKew v. Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd. [1969] 3 All ER. 1621, HL.(Sc). McLoughlin v. O'Brian [1981] Q.B. 599; [1981] 2 W.L.R. 1014; [1981] 1 AILE.R. 809, C.A. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co. Ltd. (The Wagon Mound) [1961] A.C. 388; [1961] 2 W.L.R. 126; [1961] 1 AILE.R. 404, P.C, Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. Pty. (The Wagon Mound (No. 2) [1967] 1 ACC. 617; [1966] 3 W.LR. 498; [1966] 2 AIL ER. 709, P.C. Photo Production Lid. v. Securicor Transport Ltd. [1980] A.C. 827; [1980] 2 W.LR. 283; [1980] 1 All ER. 556, H.LE). Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. Ltd., In re [1921] 3 KB. 560, C.A. Stansbie v. Troman [1948] 2 K.B. 48; [1948] 1 All E.R, 599, C.A. The following additional cases were cited in argument: Bolton v. Stone [1951] A.C. 850; [1951] 1 All E.R. 1078, H.L.(B.). Brauer v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Co. tae 103 Atl. 166.627 1 QB. Lamb v. Camden Council (C.A.) Cobb v. Great Western Railways Co. [1894] A.C. 419, H.L(E). Davies v. Liverpool Corporation [1949] 2 All E.R. 175, C.A. Dodd Properties (Kent) Lid. v. Canterbury City Council [1980] 1 W.L.R. 433; [1980] 1 AIL E.R. 928, C.A. Engelhart v. Farrant & Co. [1897] 1 QB. 240, C.A. Haynes v. Harwood [1935] 1 K.B. 146, C.A. Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency v. Compensation Appeal Tribunal [1966] 1 W.L.R. 480; [1966] 1 All E.R. 769, D.C. McDowall v. Great Western Railway Co. [1903] 2 K.B. 331, C.A. Monarch Steamship Co. Ltd. v. Karlshamns Oljefabriker (A/B) [1949} AC. 196; [1949] 1 AIIER. 1, H.L.(Sc.). Oropesa, The [1943] P. 32, C.A. Parsons '(H.) (Livestock) Ltd. v. Uttley Ingham & Co. Ltd. [1978] Q.B. 791; [1977] 3 W.L.R. 990; [1978] 1 All ER, 525, C.A. Radford v. De Froberville [1977] 1 W.L.R. 1262; [1978] 1 All BR. 33, Rouse v. Squires [1973] Q.B. 889; [1973] 2 W.LR. 925; [1973] 2 All ER. 903, C.A. Ruoff v. Long & Co, [1916] 1 K.B. 148, D.C. “Scott's Trustees‘v, Moss (1889) 17 R. (Ct. of Sess.) 32. Scott v. Shepherd (1773) 2 Wm.BI. 892. Scholes v. North London Railway Co. (1870) 21 L.T. 835. Singleton Abbey (Owners) v. Paludina (Owners) [1927] A.C. 16, HL@). Taupo Borough Council v. Birnie [1978] 2 N.Z.LR. 397. Writtle (Vicar of) v. Essex County Council (1979) 77 L.G.R. 656. Appeal from Judge Fay, an Official Referee. By writ of July 5, 1977, the plaintiffs, Rosemarie Joyce Wittman Lamb (feme sole) and her father, Gustav Rudolf Wittman, as freehold owners of 6, Villas on the Heath, Vale of Health, Hampstead, N.W.3 (“the house”), claimed damages for negligence and nuisance against the defendants, Camden London Borough Council and J. Murphy & Sons Ltd. The house had been the matrimonial home of the first plaintiff and her former husband and held by them as joint freehold owners. In 1972 they moved to New York and the house was let. In March 1977 the title to the house was registered in the Land Registry in the names of ‘the plaintiffs. The defendants admitted liability for nuisance and on the issue of damages the official referee, Judge Fay, on March 8, 1978, gave judgment for the plaintiffs for £28,038 plus £6,439 interest a total of £34,477. in respect of the subsidence of the house. The’ official referee after citing Lord Reid in Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. v. Home Office [1970] A.C. 1004; 1027-1030, said that his task was “to decide whether invasions by squatters were likely to follow the events” in the case. He concluded that “the extensive damage caused by the squatters,” which’ had been agreed at £29,296-05 for “vandals, squatter damage and theft” was “too remote and cannot form part of the damage payable by the defendants.” The plaintiffs appealed. They sought an order that the judgment be varied and judgment be entered for the plaintiffs for a further £36,655'47 ‘(including £2,715-22 V.A.T.) damages on the grounds’ that the judge. was wrong in.law.in holding that’ the damage done’ to the