Scottish Water ordered to pay homeowners £220,000 over property destroyed by sinkhole

A couple whose home was demolished after a water main burst in their garden and caused a sinkhole to appear outside their property are to be awarded £220,000 in compensation.

 

A judge in the Court of Session ruled that David O’Connor and Susan Docherty had proved their case that Scottish Water were liable for the incident which led to them losing their home less than a week before Christmas in 2013.

 

 

Lady Wolffe heard that the pursuers were the heritable proprietors of the house in Millroad Drive, Glasgow when, on about 18 December 2013, Mr O’Conner noticed that a paving slab at the front of the property had disappeared into the ground. 

 

A day or so later, six more paving slabs disappeared into a larger hole that had opened in front of the property. 

 

Shortly thereafter the pursuers required to evacuate the property, as the increasing size of the subsurface void had affected the structural integrity of the property’s foundations and rendered it unsafe.  

 

Subsequent investigation by Scottish Water, Glasgow City Council and others, revealed that a manhole immediately to the west of the property boundary had collapsed.  

 

The cause of this was disputed, but it was not disputed that a substantial subsurface void had occurred in the immediate vicinity of the manhole and under the property. 

 

As a result of the 2013 collapse, the property was demolished and the pursuers required to move elsewhere.

 

They raised an action seeking compensation from the defenders, who were responsible for the manhole and the sewer to which it was connected, relying on section 10 of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980, which provides that a local authority or Scottish Water shall make “full compensation” to any person who has sustained damage by reason of the exercise by them of their powers in relation to a matter as to which he has not himself been in default.

 

 

To succeed in their claim, the pursuers had to show that there was an “escape of water” from a structure for which Scottish Water was responsible, and which cause damage to the property. 

 

It was common ground that the manhole and the garden ground outside the property failed and resulted in the 2013 collapse and loss of the structural integrity of the property.  

 

It was also common ground that this was probably consequent upon a leak from the nearby manhole which contributed to ground disturbance or erosion and the undermining of the property.  

 

The dispute between the parties was what caused the manhole to leak. 

 

The pursuers’ case was premised on a prior event, the rupture of a water main in December 2008 near the property, which the pursuers contended damaged the manhole in some way, causing it to leak and which caused or materially contributed to the ultimate collapse of the ground under and around the property in 2013.  

 

It was alleged that a large volume of water was discharged at high pressure from a broken water main in December 2008 below Millroad Drive opposite the property. 

 

The pursuers claimed that the 2008 event, which created two sinkholes, was causative of the 2013 collapse, but the defenders argued that the 2008 event was unrelated to, and had no causal connection with, the 2013 collapse.  

 

They advanced alternative explanations for the 2013 collapse, including “heavy rainfall” in the month or so preceding the 2013 collapse and, it is said, the “poor quality” of the land in the area. 

 

 

However, having heard evidence from the parties’ expert witnesses, Mr Smith for the pursuers and Professor Cook for the defenders, the judge ruled that the pursuers had succeeded in their case.

 

In a written opinion, Lady Wolffe said: “The 2008 event was…a ‘dramatic event’. While Professor Cook sought to minimise the damage caused…I found this unpersuasive. 

 

“The burst water main was under such pressure that it burst through the tarmac surface of the road. Water from the burst water main must have issued with such force to produce a significant volume of water sufficient to cause the sinkhole at the manhole. This is fortified by the even more dramatic degree of damage at the second sinkhole, to the south.  

 

“Whether the water travelled laterally underground, as Mr Smith posits, or it travelled principally above ground, as Professor Cook contends, the unarguable fact remains that the burst water main resulted in very substantial damage in the form of the two sinkholes. 

 

“Mr Smith described the forces that, in his opinion, would have been exerted on the manhole structure as a result of this settlement, with the possibility of drag frictional forces, downward bearing forces and a loss of support due to lateral movement of the ground. I also accept his conclusion that, whichever of these forces operated, it was ‘very probable’ that some damage was inflicted on the sewer in the vicinity of the manhole. 

 

“It is likely that this damage would have resulted in leakage from the tunnel part of the sewer, which would have set in train the process that ultimately led to the development of the sinkhole. 

 

“I accept this evidence and I find that on a balance of probabilities this most likely resulted in some damage to the manhole, allowing it to leak over time, and which precipitated the ultimate failure of the manhole in the form of the 2013 collapse.”

 

She added: “The 2008 water main burst caused settlement in precisely the same location that the initial settlement in November 2013 occurred. The obvious explanation for this is that the two incidents were related. 

 

“Mr Smith considered the coincidence between these two locations to be highly significant in demonstrating a connection between the two incidents. I agree. 

 

“I also accept Mr Smith’s evidence that it would be a remarkable coincidence indeed for the first sinkhole in November 2013 to appear in precisely the same location as the sinkhole in 2008 but that there was no causal connection. Professor Cook’s dismissal of this as mere coincidence was unpersuasive and inconsistent with the body of evidence I have accepted.”