HF have secured a successful outcome in a complex subsidence claim involving a Tree Preservation Order (TPO), reinforcing the significance of targeted legal expertise in handling technically challenging property damage disputes.

The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) decision in Royal Sun Alliance Insurance Ltd (RSA) v London Borough of Harrow represents a strong and positive outcome for the claimant and its appointed subsidence specialists, HF. The case centred on a compensation dispute following subsidence damage, linked to a Tree Preservation Order with the local authority being the compensating authority.

Following proceedings and a consent order agreed between the parties in January 2026, the Tribunal determined that the claimant was entitled to recover its costs with the London Borough of Harrow having to bear those costs, subject to detailed assessment – an outcome that clearly reflects the strength of the case.

Acting on behalf of RSA, and led by Rachel Longden, Associate and Team Leader, HF successfully pursued the claim through robust expert evidence and legal arguments demonstrating that the alleged subsidence could be attributed to the protected trees. Careful navigation of local authority regulations governing TPOs, ensured compliance at the same time as advancing the client’s position, leading to the successful and significant outcome.

Unlike proceedings in the County Courts, it is often assumed that there is no entitlement to recover legal costs in the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), meaning parties typically bear their own costs. This cost uncertainty has historically deterred claimants from pursuing cases, given the risk that legal fees may exceed any damages recovered. Defendants have increasingly relied on this position, asserting that costs are not recoverable even where claims are successfully resolved.

In this case, although the local authority settled prior to trial, they continued to contend that RSA was not entitled to recover costs despite the fact that their pre-litigation actions had led to the necessity of advancing the claim to that stage. This decision represents a significant development, reinforcing that the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) does have discretion to award legal costs in TPO claims and it provides greater clarity and confidence for claimants going forward.

Nick Basi, Partner in HF’s Property Team said: “Our client was rightly pleased with the result, and the decision will have a seismic change on how the industry proceeds with these cases going forward, both for claimants and defendants. Insurers will be more willing to pursue cases and defendants to settle where appropriate, without the need for going through a tribunal.

“Success in this highly complex and contested case was due to a combination of technical expertise and a clear legal strategy. This has proved particularly important where environmental protections such as TPOs intersect with subsidence claims and reinforces our strength in managing subsidence and property-related disputes.”

Tree Preservation Order