Slippery slopes: local authority liability for landslips

Slippery slopes: local authority liability for landslips
Thursday 23 November, 2017
The setting aside of esplanade reserve when land is developed on the coast or alongside lakes and rivers, means that local authorities own or control a large amount of coastal and riverbank land. Unsurprisingly, this land is often at higher risk of slippage.
A recent decision of the Auckland High Court, Cattell v Auckland Council [2017] NZHC 2140 (5 September 2017, Lang J) highlighted some of the risks Councils may face if slippage on Council-owned land causes damage to adjoining properties.
The Cattells owned property adjoining a Council-owned esplanade reserve. In 1996, the Council had developed the reserve, including adding walkways for public use. The work done by the Council led to the slope adjacent to the Cattells’ property being steepened, increasing the risk of slippage on that slope. The Council therefore engaged its engineers to assess the level of risk, and to implement measures to mitigate that risk.
The engineers recommended installing counterfort drains to reduce the risk of the slope becoming unstable in high groundwater conditions, and this work was undertaken on Council’s behalf. In order to maintain the drains and keep them functioning at full capacity, it was important that the drains be inspected regularly. The evidence however, was that inspections were not done systematically. Further inspection was carried out after a crack appeared in 2006, and fresh suggestions for maintenance were made. There was no indication that any remedial or maintenance work was carried out at this time either. The crack then widened considerably, causing damage to the Cattells’ turning area and threatening their home. The Cattells commenced proceedings.
The Court found that the Council had failed to monitor and maintain the drains and that this meant that the performance of the drainage structure was compromised. The damage to the turning area (but not the house) was linked to the increased slope instability, which was not properly mitigated due to the compromised performance of the drainage structure. The Court also found that the steepness of the slope (which also contributed to instability) was a direct result of Council’s earthworks.
The Council was therefore held liable for the damage to the turning area. No relief has yet been granted, but the likely outcome is that the Council will be required to fund the works necessary to restore support to the Cattells’ land.
The good news
The good news is that Cattell involved an unusual set of facts. A party will not usually be responsible for damage occurring to neighbouring land as a result of slippage caused by natural hazards. In Cattell the Council was liable because it had caused the problem in the first place, and had failed to take appropriate steps to mitigate it.
The not so good news
The not so good news is that there are a number of circumstances in which a Council can be held liable for slippage, even if that slippage is triggered by natural events. As the Cattell decision shows, liability may arise decades after the original works took place. It is important that local authorities take a careful approach to managing their slip liability risk.
We have experience advising local authorities on management of their “slip” risk and responding to specific situations where slippage has caused damage to residents’ property.
Our thanks to Angela Vanderwee for contributing to this article.
Please contact James MacGillivray, Kate Cornegé or Megan Crocket if you want to learn more about the issues discussed in this article.
Author
Related Articles

Councils challenge to transfer of water services rejected in High Court
Thursday 30 March, 2023

When the rubber hits the road - All aboard Aotearoa's challenge
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

Operative plans and proposed plans: what to do when there is a significant policy shift?
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Notices of requirement are relevant for resource consent applications
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Avoidance policies reign in the wake of King Salmon, but what do they require?
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Court gives guidance on consultation and decision-making process
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Cultural evidence and the continued draw of the overall judgment
Tuesday 21 December, 2021

Will new housing density rules increase contributions for developers?
Thursday 28 October, 2021

Lease of Wanaka Airport set aside due to insufficient consultation
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

What if an abatement notice requires you to breach the Resource Management Act?
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

“No ‘wine-ing’ covenants” declined for a subdivision consent in Gibbston Valley
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

From car parking fine to judicial review of a council’s code of conduct
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

Councils remain liable for compliance of contractors with the RMA
Thursday 18 March, 2021

Randerson Report released: New Direction for Resource Management
Wednesday 5 August, 2020

Could companies be liable to the public for the harm caused by their emissions?
Tuesday 10 March, 2020

Avoiding double penalties when sentencing a company and director
Thursday 23 April, 2020

Can an easement be granted over an esplanade reserve for a commercial activity?
Thursday 12 December, 2019

Draft National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2019 for consultation
Thursday 3 October, 2019

Local authority requiring monetary contributions on designations
Thursday 20 June, 2019

Bella Vista: MBIE Report highlights failure to perform statutory functions
Tuesday 9 April, 2019

Recent decision on "affected persons" highlights the importance of context
Wednesday 28 November, 2018

Must Councils accept an assertion that a person is ‘suitably qualified'?
Friday 9 March, 2018
