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.