Bryant v Macklin: CA 23 Jun 2005

The parties were neighbours. Mature trees had been damaged which had provided a screen against pylons. The cost of one directly equivalent tree would be andpound;400,000.
Held: In this case it was not possible to make an award which could restore the claimants to their position before the damage. It would be many years before replacement trees could regrow. ‘The fact that the claimants would prefer reinstatement with mature trees (rather than with young trees) is not a good reason for rejecting the option of reinstatement with young trees if that is what a reasonable person would choose to do if he was laying out his own money.’ The claimants should not have been denied at least the cost of replacing the lost trees with young whips. To those would be added an increased award of general damages. The judge had awarded aggravated damages. That award also would be increased. The defendants were well aware of the effect of their intimidatory behaviour, and that element of the award was increased to andpound;4,000.
Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Longmore and Lord Justice Carnwath
[2005] EWCA Civ 762
England and Wales
CitedFarmer Giles Ltd v Wessex Water Authority and another 1990
The court looked at the measure of damages in relation to damage to land: ‘The award, particularly when contrasted with the cost of full reinstatement, in my judgment, also passes the test of reasonableness. I add that test of reasonableness because . .
CitedWalter Frederick Scutt v John Lomax CA 4-Feb-1999
The claimant sought damages for trespass to two plots comprising about one fifth of an acre. They had over many years gardened it and tended it. The defendant had bulldozed the entire area.
Held: The diminution in the value of the land was not . .
CitedRookes v Barnard (No 1) HL 21-Jan-1964
The court set down the conditions for the award of exemplary damages. There are two categories. The first is where there has been oppressive or arbitrary conduct by a defendant. Cases in the second category are those in which the defendant’s conduct . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 January 2021; Ref: scu.227086