## 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.


Lamb v Camden LBC [1981] 2 All ER 408