Lamb v Camden LBC [1981] 2 All ER 408

Facts

  • Mrs. Lamb owned a house in Camden that was damaged when Camden London Borough Council negligently caused a water main to burst.
  • Flooding rendered the property uninhabitable, leading to occupation by squatters.
  • The squatters caused additional damage to the property, including vandalism and theft.
  • Mrs. Lamb sought compensation from the council for both the initial flood damage and the subsequent damage caused by the squatters.
  • The council admitted liability for the flood but contested liability for the damage caused by the squatters, arguing their actions constituted an unforeseeable intervening act.

Issues

  1. Whether the actions of squatters, who caused further damage after the council's negligent act, constituted a novus actus interveniens that broke the chain of causation.
  2. Whether the subsequent damage by the squatters was reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the council's original negligence.
  3. Whether the council should be liable for both the initial and subsequent damage to the property.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal held that the squatters’ actions amounted to a novus actus interveniens, breaking the chain of causation.
  • The court found that the squatters’ occupation and damaging acts were voluntary, independent, and not a natural or probable consequence of the council’s initial negligence.
  • It was determined that while some trespass or vandalism might be foreseeable, the extent and kind of damage caused by the squatters was not.
  • The council was absolved of liability for the damage caused by the squatters; liability applied only to the initial flood damage.

Legal Principles

  • The doctrine of novus actus interveniens addresses whether a new, voluntary, and independent act is sufficient to break the causal link between negligence and loss.
  • For an intervening act to break the chain, it must be independent of the defendant’s negligence and unforeseeable in the context of the original wrongdoing.
  • Foreseeability is a critical threshold in deciding whether a defendant remains liable for subsequent acts following their negligence.
  • The case illustrates that not all consequences of negligence are recoverable if a new act intervenes in a manner deemed sufficiently independent and unforeseeable.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal established that the actions of the squatters were a novus actus interveniens, rendering the council not liable for the subsequent damage. This case remains a key authority on causation and the role of unforeseeable intervening acts in limiting liability in English tort law.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal