Category: Damages

Wright and Another v Horsham District Council: UTLC 22 Aug 2011

UTLC COMPENSATION – tree preservation order – cracks appearing in house – refusal of consent to fell three oak trees – claim for cost of underpinning works, distress and inconvenience – whether damage caused by tree roots – whether evidence produced after refusal of consent admissible in determining causation – whether underpinning the natural and probable consequence of refusal of consent – whether underpinning required in any event – whether compensation payable for distress and inconvenience – compensation awarded andpound;24,001.25 – Town and Country Planning Act 1990, s.203(1)(a).

Judges:

Rose FRICS

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 319 (LC), [2011] JPL 1618

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 203(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Damages

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.445682

Fallows v Harkers Transport (A Firm): Misc 2 Sep 2011

(Romford County Court) The claimant’s insurers, by subrogation, sought to recover their costs from the defendant firm whose own vehicle had negligently collided with the claimants parked vehicle. The defendants objected to the business arangements entered into by the insurers (Royal Sun Alliance) for repairing damage to their insureds’ vehicles.

Judges:

Platt J

Citations:

[2011] EW Misc 16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Damages

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.445444

Coles and Others v Hetherton and Others: ComC 22 Sep 2011

Parties challenged the method used by the Royal and Sun Alliance insurance to calculate the cost of repairs to motor vehicles damaged in accidents. After conflicting decisions in County Courts, the issue was brought before the Commercial Court.
Held: The applications should be transferred and the court gave management directions.

Judges:

Walker J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 2405 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Coles and Others v Hetherton and Others ComC 15-Jun-2012
. .
See Also – Coles and Others v Hetherton and Others CA 20-Dec-2013
The claimants’ insurers disputed arrangements by the defendants’ insurers in motor accident claims which, they said artificially inflated the costs of repairs to the profit of the defendants’ insurers. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Road Traffic

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.444878

Mitsui and Co Ltd and Others v Beteiligungsgesellschaft Lpg Tankerflotte Mbh and Co Kg and Another: SC 25 Oct 2017

This appeal raises the issue whether the daily vessel-operating expenses of shipowners incurred while they were negotiating to reduce the ransom demands of pirates should be allowed in general average – ie whether those expenses should be shared proportionately between all those whose property and entitlements were imperilled as a result of that seizure – or whether they must be borne by the shipowner alone. The Appellants submitted that the negotiation period expenses fell within the expression ‘expense incurred’ by the owners within Rule F and those expenses were incurred ‘in place of another expense’ (i.e. the $4.15m saved as a result of the negotiations with the pirates). Further, the negotiation period expenses were less than the ‘general average expense avoided’ and it thereby followed that they were properly allowable under Rule F.
Held: (Lord Mance dissenting on the facts) The appeal succeeded. The Courts below had incorrectly assumed that the owners had to establish that it would have been reasonable to accept the pirates’ initial demand in order to justify the contention that the negotiation period expenses were allowable under Rule F. If accepted, this would lead to odd results, meaning that, where a ship-owner incurs expense to avoid paying a reasonable sum, he can in principle recover under Rule F, but that if he incurs expense to avoid paying
an unreasonable sum (i.e. a larger sum), he cannot recover.
Lord Neuberger said: ‘the reference to an ‘expense which would have been allowable’ is to an expense of a nature which would have been allowable. First, the word ‘allowable’ in Rule F naturally takes one to Rule C, where the similar word ‘allowed’ is used, rather than Rule A, where there is no reference to anything being ‘allowed’ (the same point applies to the French version – ‘admissible’ in Rule F and ‘admis’ in Rule C). Unlike Rule A, Rule C is concerned purely with the type of expense, and not with quantum. Secondly, the opening part of Rule F is unlikely to be concerned with quantum, as that is dealt with in the closing part, which imposes a cap on a sum recoverable under Rule F, namely ‘only up to the amount of the general average expense avoided’. Thirdly, the interpretation assumed in the courts below imposes an unnecessary fetter on the allowability of an ‘extra expense’, as there is already a reasonable fetter in the concluding part of Rule F. Fourthly, the interpretation I favour produces an entirely rational outcome: whenever an expense is incurred to avoid a sum of a type which would be allowable, that expense would be allowable, but only to the extent that it does not exceed the sum avoided.’
Lord Sumption said: ‘The York-Antwerp Rules have a status in shipping law similar to that of the Uniform Customs and Practices in the law relating to documentary credits. They depend wholly on contractual incorporation for their binding force. But they are designed to create a body of principle applicable internationally in a uniform way, although incorporated in shipping agreements of different kinds, governed by different laws. It will therefore rarely if ever be appropriate to imply matter into them which is not apparent from the natural meaning of the words, unless the implication is necessary to make them workable or intelligible or to avoid absurdity. Rule F is simplicity itself. It provides for the allowance of expenditure which is not allowable as general average expenditure but has successfully mitigated expenditure or sacrifice which would have been allowable as general average. The cost of maintaining the ship and crew during a period of delay which would not have occurred but for the peril but was necessary to enable the ransom to be reduced, is deemed to be general average up to the amount of the reduction.’

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Hodge

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 68, [2017] Bus LR 1909, [2017] WLR(D) 703, UKSC 2016/0164

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 20170717 am Video, SC 20170717 pm Video, SC 20170718 am Video, SC 20170718 pm Video

Statutes:

York Antwerp Rules 1974 F

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Birkley and Others v Presgrave 3-Feb-1801
An action upon promises lies by a ship owner to recover from the owner of the cargo his proportion of general average loss incurred by sacrificing the tackle belonging to a ship for an unusual purpose, or on an extraordinary occasion of danger, for . .
Cited – James Buchanan and Co Ltd v Babco Forwarding and Shipping (UK) Ltd HL 1978
A consignment of whisky was stolen whilst on consignemt from a bonded warehouse under CMR terms for Teheran. In bond, it was worth 7,000 pounds, and on export no excise duty was to be paid. Being stolen in the course of transit, excise duty of . .
Cited – Marida Ltd v Oswal Steel (The Bijela) CA 1993
Hoffmann LJ dissented . .
Cited – King v Bristow Helicopters Ltd; Morris v KLM Royal Dutch Airlines HL 28-Feb-2002
Psychiatric Injury under Warsaw Convention
The applicants were passengers who claimed damages for psychiatric injury, after accidents in aircraft.
Held: The Convention created strict liability on air carriers, but explicitly restricted damages to be payable for ‘bodily injury’. That . .
At First Instance – Mitsui and Co Ltd and Others v Beteiligungsgesellschaft Lpg Tankerflotte Mbh and Co Kg and Another QBD 2015
The sip had been taken by pirates. The parties disputed the burden of expenses while negotiations took place for its release.
Held: the hypothetical other expense must be one which would have been reasonably incurred in a sense ‘interpreted . .
At CA – Mitsui and Co Ltd and Others v Beteiligungsgesellschaft Lpg and Others CA 13-Jul-2016
The court was asked whether the general expenses incurred when a ship was taken by pirates were allowable in General Average while the negotiations for release took place. . .
Cited – Marida Ltd and Others v Oswal Steel and Others (The Bijela) HL 2-May-1994
Ship owners may claim for the cost of interim repairs in average, but still subject to the overall limits imposed by the rules. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Damages

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.597669

XP v Compensa Towarzystwo Sa and Another: QBD 13 Jul 2016

The claimant had been injured in two separate car accidents suffering physical and psychiatric injuries. Liability was admitted but the insurers coud not agree apportionment of losses.

Judges:

Whipple J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1728 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Bumper Development Corporation Ltd v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 1991
An Indian temple having a legal persona recognised in India may assert rights and make claims under English Law. Even though it would not be recognised as a litigant if based in England and Wales, it was nonetheless entitled, in accordance with the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.567070

Farstad Supply As v Enviroco Ltd: SCS 14 Sep 2011

(Outer House) The parties had settled a claim for the loss by fire of an oil rig supply vessel. The parties now disputed whether the settlement carries interest under the Act. The parties’ insurers were concerned that the interest rate awarded under the staute at 8% was too high.

Judges:

Lord Hodge

Citations:

[2011] ScotCS CSOH – 153

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Damages (Scotland) Act 1958

Citing:

Cited – Carmichael v Caledonian Railway Co HL 1870
Interest can be demanded only in virtue of a contract express or implied ‘or by virtue of the principal sum of money having been wrongfully withheld, and not paid on the day when it ought to have been paid.’ Interest was due when money was . .
Cited – Kolbin and Sons v Kinnear and Co Ltd HL 6-Jul-1931
Claim for wrongful delivery of goods. . .
Cited – Macrae v Reed and Mallik Ltd SCS 1961
(Second Division)
Held: Interest from a date earlier than the date of decree could be allowed on damages awarded for loss suffered before that date only where such loss could be definitely ascertained. Interest on solatium (being ascertainable . .
Cited – Boots The Chemist Ltd v G A Estates Ltd 1992
It is the general practice of the Court of Session to award interest due under the 1958 Act at the rate of 8%. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Farstad Supply As v Enviroco Ltd SCS 20-Feb-2013
The pursuers sought damages arising from a fire on their oil rig. The principal damages had been agreed, but the parties disputed the calculation of interest, the defenders saying that interest was due only on elements quantifiable before the date . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Damages

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.444240

Johnson and Another v Davis and Another: CA 18 Mar 1998

The court was asked: ‘whether or not the appellants were released from their obligation under a covenant to indemnify the respondents against claims arising under a lease by reason of the terms of an individual voluntary arrangement made under part VIII of the Insolvency Act 1986 by a co-obligee who was liable, jointly with the appellants, under the same covenant.’
Held: There is no rule of law that one joint debtor (not joint and several) may not be released from debt by the individual voluntary arrangement of another.
Chadwick LJ observed that: ‘The statutory hypothesis is that the person who had notice of and was entitled to vote at the meeting is party to an arrangement to which he has given his consent . . Unlike the earlier legislation, section 260(2) of the Act of 1986 does not purport, directly, to impose the arrangement on a dissenting creditor whether or not he has agreed to its terms; rather, he is bound by the arrangements as the result of a statutory hypothesis. The statutory hypothesis requires him to be treated as if he had consented to the arrangement.’ Accordingly, questions as to the effect of the arrangement on sureties . . were to be answered by treating the arrangement as consensual; that is to say, by construing its terms as if they were the terms of a consensual agreement between the debtor and all those creditors who, under the statutory hypothesis, must be treated as being consenting parties.’

Judges:

Chadwick, Kennedy, Ward LJJ

Citations:

Times 31-Mar-1998, Gazette 13-May-1998, [1999] Ch 117, [1998] EWCA Civ 483, [1998] 2 All ER 649

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Insolvency Act 1986 260(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Deanplan Limited v Mahmoud 1992
The court considered whether a release of one of joint contractors released the other contractors. He said: ‘An original lessee or intermediate assignee of the lease who had given a direct covenant to pay rent and observe the covenant is released . .
Cited – RA Securities v Mercantile Credit 1995
The effect of an individual voluntary arrangement was not such as to release solvent co-debtors under the rule of law that the release of one of two or more joint debtors has the effect of releasing the other or others. . .
Applied – Watts v Aldington, Tolstoy v Aldington CA 15-Dec-1993
There had been a settlement of proceedings for libel brought by Lord Aldington against Mr Nigel Watts and Count Nikolai Tolstoy. Lord Aldington had obtained judgment for andpound;1.5 million in damages against both defendants following a trial. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Chelsea Building Society v Nash CA 19-Oct-2010
The defendant customer of the Society appealed against an order as to the sum due under a joint mortgage. She said that the ‘full and final settlement’ of the debt with Ms Nash’s former husband and joint mortgagor had the effect of releasing Ms Nash . .
Cited – Wright and Another (Liquidators of SHB Realisations Ltd) v The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd ChD 6-Mar-2018
IVA is a special form of contract
Liquidators asked the court whether sums sought by the insolvent company’s landlords were payable and or provable. Under an IVA, the copany had been paying reduced rents, but the arrangement document provided that the full rents would be restored on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Damages, Contract

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.443849

XX v Whittington Hospital NHS Trust: QBD 18 Sep 2017

The defendant Trust admitted a failure to diagnose cancer in the claimant. As a result of the necessary treatment, she became infertile. An earlier treatment might have avoided this. She now sought damages, inter alia for losses associated with the costs of a foreign surrogate pregnancy.
Held: Damages were calculated and awarded including a sum toward the costs of the surrogacy arrangement.

Judges:

Sir Robert Nelson

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 2318 (QB), [2018] PIQR Q2

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Briody v St Helens and Knowlsey Area Health Authority CA 29-Jun-2001
The appellant had claimed and been awarded damages for a negligently performed caesarean operation. She had been refused damages for the cost of later going to California to go through a commercial surrogacy procedure.
Held: Such claims were . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – XX v Whittington Hospital NHS Trust CA 19-Dec-2018
The defendant had failed to diagnose cancer in the claimant. The court was now asked whether the judge was correct in law to refuse (or limit) Ms X’s recovery of damages for expenses of surrogacy arrangements which she intended to make, either in . .
At QBD – XX v Whittington Hospital NHS Trust (Leave) CA 19-Dec-2018
Refusal of permission to appeal to Supreme Court . .
Cited – Whittington Hospital NHS Trust v XX SC 1-Apr-2020
A negligent delay in the diagnosis of her cancer left the clamant dependent on paid for surrogacy arrangements. Three issues were raised; could damages to fund surrogacy arrangements using the claimant’s own eggs be recovered? Second, if so, could . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Damages

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.597495

XX v Whittington Hospital NHS Trust: CA 19 Dec 2018

The defendant had failed to diagnose cancer in the claimant. The court was now asked whether the judge was correct in law to refuse (or limit) Ms X’s recovery of damages for expenses of surrogacy arrangements which she intended to make, either in the state of California in the United States of America or, alternatively, in this country. The second issue is whether, in so far as the judge awarded damages for such surrogacy expenses as would be lawful in this country, he was correct to differentiate between ‘own egg’ and ‘donor egg’ surrogacies. The third issue is whether, dependent upon our decision upon the surrogacy issues, there should be any reduction in the damages awarded for pain, suffering and loss of amenity (‘PSLA’).
Held: The Court dismissed the Hospital’s appeal and allowed the mother’s appeal. She was entitled to the costs associated with the two surrogacy arrangements under each method.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mccombe
Lady Justice King
And
Lady Justice Nicola Davies

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 2832, [2019] 3 WLR 107, [2019] WLR(D) 10

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – XX v Whittington Hospital NHS Trust QBD 18-Sep-2017
The defendant Trust admitted a failure to diagnose cancer in the claimant. As a result of the necessary treatment, she became infertile. An earlier treatment might have avoided this. She now sought damages, inter alia for losses associated with the . .
Cited – Briody v St Helens and Knowlsey Area Health Authority CA 29-Jun-2001
The appellant had claimed and been awarded damages for a negligently performed caesarean operation. She had been refused damages for the cost of later going to California to go through a commercial surrogacy procedure.
Held: Such claims were . .

Cited by:

Main judgment – XX v Whittington Hospital NHS Trust (Leave) CA 19-Dec-2018
Refusal of permission to appeal to Supreme Court . .
Appeal from – Whittington Hospital NHS Trust v XX SC 1-Apr-2020
A negligent delay in the diagnosis of her cancer left the clamant dependent on paid for surrogacy arrangements. Three issues were raised; could damages to fund surrogacy arrangements using the claimant’s own eggs be recovered? Second, if so, could . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.631422

Briody v St Helens and Knowlsey Area Health Authority: CA 29 Jun 2001

The appellant had claimed and been awarded damages for a negligently performed caesarean operation. She had been refused damages for the cost of later going to California to go through a commercial surrogacy procedure.
Held: Such claims were to be differentiated from payment of the costs of vitro fertilization. The chances of success were very slim, and the expenditure unreasonable. Neither the child nor the pregnancy would be hers, and in reality it was a form of adoption.

Judges:

Henry LJ, Judge LJ, Hale LJ

Citations:

Times 14-Aug-2001, Gazette 31-Aug-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1010, [2001] 2 FLR 1094, [2001] 2 FCR 481, [2002] QB 856, (2001) 62 BMLR 1, [2001] Fam Law 796, [2002] 2 WLR 394

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Briody v St Helens and Knowlsey Heath Authority QBD 21-Jan-2000
The claimant having become unable to have children through the negligence of the Authority, claimed in damages the cost of arranging a paid surrogacy arrangement abroad. Such arrangements here were void and unenforceable, and it would be against . .
See Also – St Helen’s and Knowsley Area Health Authority v Briody CA 21-Apr-1999
. .

Cited by:

Cited – XX v Whittington Hospital NHS Trust QBD 18-Sep-2017
The defendant Trust admitted a failure to diagnose cancer in the claimant. As a result of the necessary treatment, she became infertile. An earlier treatment might have avoided this. She now sought damages, inter alia for losses associated with the . .
Cited – XX v Whittington Hospital NHS Trust CA 19-Dec-2018
The defendant had failed to diagnose cancer in the claimant. The court was now asked whether the judge was correct in law to refuse (or limit) Ms X’s recovery of damages for expenses of surrogacy arrangements which she intended to make, either in . .
Not Current – Whittington Hospital NHS Trust v XX SC 1-Apr-2020
A negligent delay in the diagnosis of her cancer left the clamant dependent on paid for surrogacy arrangements. Three issues were raised; could damages to fund surrogacy arrangements using the claimant’s own eggs be recovered? Second, if so, could . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Family

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.136178

Richardson v HSBC Bank Plc: EAT 13 Jul 2011

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason
Polkey deduction
The Tribunal assessed compensation for unfair dismissal without giving correct consideration to the questions (1) whether the Respondent adequately considered whether it could offer the Claimant alternative employment, (2) whether the Respondent selected the Claimant fairly for redundancy. Case remitted for the Tribunal to consider these questions and then to consider compensation afresh in the light of its conclusions upon them.
Late application to amend Notice of Appeal to argue an additional point – refused by Registrar – interlocutory appeal dismissed.

Judges:

Richardson J

Citations:

[2011] UKEAT 0499 – 10 – 1307

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Damages

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.443292

Home Office v Stellato: QBD 7 Apr 2009

The court considered the calculations of damages for a claimant who had been unlawfully detained in prison. He had been serving a sentence of 10 years imprisonment. He had sought release at three quarters of his sentence as of right but this was at first refused, and he was detained beyond the date which the court of appeal later confirmed should have been his release date.

Judges:

Cranston J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1719 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Damages, Prisons

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442594

W v Veolia Environmental Services (UK) Plc: QBD 27 Jul 2011

The claimant’s car had been damaged by a lorry operated by the defendant. The claimant hired a replacement car under a credit hire agreement with AE, which he signed at his home when the replacement vehicle was delivered to him. The defendant’s insurers refused to pay AE’s charges under the 2008 Regulations, and AE therefore looked to W for payment. Once the point on the Regulations had been raised W’s insurers paid the charges and in proceedings brought in his name sought to recover them from the defendant. The defendant argued that the Regulations rendered the credit hire agreement unenforceable against W, because it did not contain the notice required under regulation 7(2), and that in paying AE’s charges W had failed to mitigate his loss.
Held: Adopting and applying the reasoning of His Honour Judge Moloney Q.C. in the Cambridge County Court in Chen Wei v Cambridge Power and Light Ltd (unreported), the court held that the Regulations applied to the contract between W and AE so that it was unenforceable against him and that a claim to recover the charges from W would have failed for the reasons set out in Dimond v Lovell, had he not paid the hire. However, Judge Mackie held that W was to be treated as having paid the hire charges himself and therefore as having suffered a loss in obtaining a replacement vehicle. Having had the use of the vehicle, it was not unreasonable for W to pay the hire charges, even though he was not legally liable to do so, and accordingly he had not failed to mitigate his loss. He was therefore entitled to recover from the defendant.

Judges:

MacKie QC J

Citations:

[2012] 1 All ER (Comm) 667, [2011] EWHC 2020 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Cancellation of Contracts Made in a Consumer’s Home or Place of Work etc. Regulations 2008

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – King v The Victoria Insurance Company Limited PC 20-Mar-1896
Queensland – A cargo of wool was insured ‘at and from Townsville to London’. The lighter carrying the cargo to the ship capsized in the harbour. The insurers paid out and, taking an assignment of the action sued the defendant Government. The latter . .

Cited by:

Cited – Salat v Barutis CA 20-Nov-2013
The claimant had been knocked from his motor cyle by the defendant. He hired a replacement, but when he sought payment of the associated hire charges, the defendant said that the hire company had failed to comply with the 208 Regulations, and that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Consumer, Damages

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442245

Brunsden v Humphrey: CA 1884

The defendant had negligently caused damage to a cab driver and his vehicle in the same accident. The cab driver obtained damages for the damage to his vehicle.
Held: He was not disentitled from bringing fresh proceedings for damages for personal injury. There were two causes of action.
Bowen LJ discussed the single action rule, saying: ‘Nobody can doubt that if the plaintiff had recovered any damages for injury to his person, he could not have maintained a further action for fresh bodily injuries caused by the same act of negligence, merely because they had been discovered or developed subsequently.’ and ‘It is a well settled rule of law that damages resulting from one and the same cause of action must be assessed and recovered once for all.’ The rule is based on the maxim interest rei publicae ut sit finis litium, ‘otherwise great oppression might be done under colour and pretence of law.’

Judges:

Bowen LJ

Citations:

(1884) 14 QBD 141

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Johnston v NEI International Combustion Ltd; Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd; similar HL 17-Oct-2007
The claimant sought damages for the development of neural plaques, having been exposed to asbestos while working for the defendant. The presence of such plaques were symptomless, and would not themselves cause other asbestos related disease, but . .
Cited – Watkins and Another v Jones Maidment Wilson (A Firm) CA 4-Mar-2008
The claimants alleged professional negligence by the defendant solicitors in advising them to agree to a postponment of a completion. The defendants raised as a preliminary issue the question of limitation. The claimant said that the limitation . .
Applied – Conquer v Boot CA 1928
The householder recovered damages in the county court in an action against a builder for breach of a building contract to complete the works in a good and workmanlike manner. He then brought a second action upon the same contract. In the second . .
Cited – Moorjani and Others v Durban Estates Ltd and Another TCC 15-May-2019
Allegations of breach of landlords’ repairing obligations – defendants’ strike out application.
Held: ‘ the critical question is whether this second action is based on the same cause, or causes, of action, and not whether it pleads the same . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.260120

Darley Main Colliery Co v Mitchell: HL 1886

The owner of land whose land was affected by subsidence in 1868 and who received compensation from those who had worked coal and caused the subsidence, was able, in 1882 when further subsidence took place causing further injury, to bring a fresh action for compensation. No action could be brought in respect of a withdrawal of support until physical damage had occurred. That was then a fresh action. ‘A man slandered or libelled by words actionable in themselves must sue, if at all, for all his damage in one action.’ ‘No one will think of disputing the proposition that for one cause of action you must recover all damages incident to it by law once and for ever. A house that has received a shock may not at once show all the damage done to it, but it is damaged nonetheless [then] to the extent that it is damaged, and the fact that the damage only manifests itself later on by stages does not alter the fact that the damage is there; and so of the more complex mechanism of the human frame, the damage is done in a railway accident, the whole machinery is injured, though it may escape the eye or even the consciousness of the sufferer at the time, the later stages of suffering are but the manifestations of the [original] damage done, and consequent upon the injury originally sustained.’

Judges:

Lord Bramwell

Citations:

(1886) 11 App Cas 127

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Phonographic Performance Limited v Department of Trade and Industry HM Attorney General ChD 23-Jul-2004
The claimant represented the interests of copyright holders, and complained that the defendant had failed to implement the Directive properly, leaving them unable properly to collect royalties in the music rental market. The respondent argued that . .
Distinguished – Iqbal v Legal Services Commission CA 10-May-2005
The claimant had been a partner in a firm of solicitors. They came to be suspected by the respondent of overclaiming legal aid payments and sums were withheld. For this and other reasons the practice folded, and the claimant became insolvent. He . .
Cited – Pirelli General Cable Works v Oscar Faber and Partners HL 2-Jan-1983
The plaintiff asked the defendant consulting engineer to design an extension to their factory in 1969. Not later than in April 1970, cracks developed in the chimney. In 1977 the cause of the damage was discovered. It arose from design faults in the . .
Cited – Patterson v Ministry of Defence QBD 29-Jul-1986
The plaintiff had been exposed to asbestos when working for the defendant. X-rays revealed development of pleural plaques, but these would remain asymptomatic.
Held: Material damage sufficient to set time running was the same as damage . .
Mentioned – Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd and Another CA 26-Jan-2006
Each claimant sought damages after being exposed to asbestos dust. The defendants resisted saying that the injury alleged, the development of pleural plaques, was yet insufficient as damage to found a claim.
Held: (Smith LJ dissenting) The . .
Cited – Moorjani and Others v Durban Estates Ltd and Another TCC 15-May-2019
Allegations of breach of landlords’ repairing obligations – defendants’ strike out application.
Held: ‘ the critical question is whether this second action is based on the same cause, or causes, of action, and not whether it pleads the same . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Land

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.214291

Thomas and Others v Bridgend County Borough Council: CA 26 Jul 2011

Carnwath LJ considered the effect of Bugajny and other cases after Sporrong: ‘ Later cases (see eg Bugajny v Poland (Application No 22531/05) (unreported) given 6 November 2007, para 56 and following) have given further guidance on the practical application of article 1 to individual cases. First, the three rules are not ‘distinct in the sense of being unconnected’; the second and third rules are to be ‘construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule’. Secondly, although not spelt out in the wording of the article, claims under any of the three rules need to be examined under four heads:
(i) whether there was an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of ‘possessions’;
(ii) whether the interference was ‘in the general interest’;
(iii) whether the interference was ‘provided for by law’; and
(iv) proportionality of the interference.
. . The cases show that the issue of proportionality can be expanded into the following question:
‘whether the interference with the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions struck the requisite fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the public and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights, or whether it imposed a disproportionate and excessive burden on them.’ (Bugajny v Poland 6 November 2007, para 67).’

Judges:

Mummery, Carnwath, Hedley LJJ

Citations:

[2012] 2 WLR 624, [2011] EWCA Civ 862, [2012] PTSR 441, [2012] JPL 25, [2012] QB 512, [2012] HLR 1, [2011] RVR 241

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Compensation Act 1973

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Thomas and Others v Bridgend County Borough Council UTLC 29-Jul-2010
UTLC COMPENSATION–whether the 3 year time limit provided by section 19(3) of the Land Compensation Act 1973 for making a claim for compensation in respect of depreciation in value of interest in land caused by . .

Cited by:

Cited – Cusack v London Borough of Harrow SC 19-Jun-2013
The landowner practised from property in Harrow. The former garden had now for many years been used as a forecourt open to the highway, for parking cars of staff and clients. Cars crossed the footpath to gain access, and backing out into the road . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Damages

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.442185

King v Bristow Helicopters Ltd: IHCS 25 Oct 2000

The definition ‘any other bodily harm’ contained in the Warsaw Convention was wide enough to include psychiatric harm. Returning to the original text of the convention it was clear that it was not intended simply to import the French law, and that the words were ones of expansion, rather than limitation of the scope of damages which could be claimed. Psychiatric harm which was not claimed to be consequent from physical injury or condition, was claimable under the Convention.

Citations:

Times 25-Oct-2000

Statutes:

Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules regarding International Air Transport 1929

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Personal Injury, Damages, Transport

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.82783

Parker v The Chief Constable of Essex Police: CA 11 Dec 2018

The claimant was arrested on suspicion of murder and rape. The investigating officer was delayed by traffic so the arrest was carried out by a surveillance officer who was present at the scene but did not personally have reasonable grounds for suspecting the claimant was guilty of an offence, as required by section 24(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Held: The judge had been entitled to conclude that there were reasonable grounds to suspect the claimant of an offence and a reasonable belief in the necessity of arrest, and therefore the claimant was entitled only nominal and not substantial damages.

Judges:

Sir Brian Leveson P, Hallett, Ryder LJJ

Citations:

[2018] WLR(D) 755, [2018] EWCA Civ 2788, [2019] 3 All ER 399, [2019] 1 WLR 2238

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 24(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hemmati and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 27-Nov-2019
The Home Secretary appealed from a finding that illegally entered asylum seekers had been unlawfully detained pending removal. The five claimants had travelled through other EU member states before entering the UK. The court considered inter alia . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Police, Damages

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.631417

Al-Jedda v United Kingdom: ECHR 7 Jul 2011

Grand Chamber – The international measure relied on by the respondent state had to be interpreted in a manner that minimised the extent to which arbitrary detention was sanctioned or required.
The court described its role in settling awards of compensation under the Convention: ‘The court recalls that it is not its role under article 41 to function akin to a domestic tort mechanism court in apportioning fault and compensatory damages between civil parties. Its guiding principle is equity, which above all involves flexibility and an objective consideration of what is just, fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, including not only the position of the applicant but the overall context in which the breach occurred. Its non-pecuniary awards serve to give recognition to the fact that moral damage occurred as a result of a breach of a fundamental human right and reflect in the broadest of terms the severity of the damage.’

Citations:

27021/08, [2011] ECHR 1092, 30 BHRC 637, (2011) 53 EHRR 23

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5 41

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

At CA (1) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 29-Mar-2006
The applicant had dual Iraqi and British nationality. He was detained by British Forces in Iraq under suspicion of terrorism, and interned.
Held: His appeal failed. The UN resolution took priority over the European Convention on Human Rights . .
At Admn (1) – Al-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 12-Aug-2005
The claimant was born an Iraqi, but had been granted British Nationality. He was later detained in Iraq suspected of membership of a terrorist group. No charges were brought, and he complained that his article 5 rights were infringed. The defendant . .
At HL – Al-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence (JUSTICE intervening) HL 12-Dec-2007
The appellant who had dual Iraqi and British nationality complained of his detention by British troops in Iraq. He was not charged with any offence, but was detained on the ground that his internment is necessary for imperative reasons of security . .
At SIAC (1) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 23-May-2008
The appellant had been granted british citizenship. He now appealed against a an order under section 40(2) of the 1981 Act depriving him of his British citizenship on the ground that the respondent was satisfied that deprivation was conducive to the . .
At SIAC (2) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 22-Oct-2008
The Court was asked whether or not the procedural protections afforded by Article 6(1) ECHRR as identified by the House of Lords in Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB [2007] UKHL 46 [2008] 1 AC 440 apply to the Appellant’s appeal . .
At ECHR (1) – Al-Jedda v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-Mar-2009
The claimant, an Iraqi and British national complained of his arrest and internment on suspicion of terrorist involvement. . .
See Also – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence QBD 5-Mar-2009
The claimant, an Iraqi/British national complained of his detention in Iraq by the defendant without any due process. . .
At SIAC (3) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 7-Apr-2009
The appellant challenged an order made under the 1981 Act revoking his British citizenship, saying that it infringed his article 8 rights to family life. . .
See Also – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 12-Mar-2010
The claimant appealed against a decision withdrawing his British citizenship, saying that this would leave him stateless. . .
See Also – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 8-Jul-2010
Al Jedda, who had both Iraqi and British nationality, sought damages for unlawful imprisonment by reason of his detention by British forces in a military detention centre in Iraq. . .
See Also – Hilal Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 26-Nov-2010
Deprivation of Citizenship – Substantive – Dismissed . .
At SIAC (3) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Deprivation of Citizenship Directions – Oral Ruling ) SIAC 7-Feb-2014
Order . .

Cited by:

Cited – Faulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another SC 1-May-2013
The applicants had each been given a life sentence, but having served the minimum term had been due to have the continued detention reviewed to establish whether or not continued detention was necessary for the protection of the pblic. It had not . .
See Also – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 29-Mar-2012
The appellant had been deprived of his British Citizenship by an order of the respondent under the 1981 Act. That had meant that he was unable to return to the UK. He now appealed against refusal of his challenge to the order. . .
At ECHR (2) – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Al-Jedda SC 9-Oct-2013
The claimant had obtained British citizenship, but had had it removed by the appellant by an order under the 1981 Act after he came to be suspected of terrorist involvement. He had appealed against the order, eventually succeeding on the basis that . .
At ECHR (2) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 7-Apr-2009
The appellant challenged an order made under the 1981 Act revoking his British citizenship, saying that it infringed his article 8 rights to family life. . .
At ECHR (2) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 8-Jul-2010
Al Jedda, who had both Iraqi and British nationality, sought damages for unlawful imprisonment by reason of his detention by British forces in a military detention centre in Iraq. . .
At ECHR (2) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 12-Mar-2010
The claimant appealed against a decision withdrawing his British citizenship, saying that this would leave him stateless. . .
At ECHR (2) – Hilal Al-Jedda SIAC 18-Jul-2014
lSIAC Deprivation of Citizenship : Preliminary Issue . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Damages

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.441607

British Columbia, etc. Saw Mills Co. Ltd v Nettleship: 1868

Willes J said: ‘the mere fact of knowledge cannot increase the liability. The knowledge must be brought home to the party sought to be charged under such circumstances that he must know that the person he contracts with reasonably believes that he accepts the contract with the special condition attached to it . . Knowledge on the part of the carrier is only important if it forms part of the contract. It may be that the knowledge is acquired casually from a stranger, the person to whom the goods belong not knowing or caring whether he had such knowledge or not’.

Judges:

Willes J

Citations:

[1868] LR 3 CP 499

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Transfield Shipping Inc of Panama v Mercator Shipping Inc of Monrovia ComC 1-Dec-2006
The owners made substantial losses after the charterers breached the contract by failing to redliver the ship on time as agreed.
Held: On the facts found the Owners’ primary claim is not too remote. To the knowledge of the Charterers, it was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Damages

Updated: 14 September 2022; Ref: scu.246865

Greenfield, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 16 Feb 2005

The appellant had been charged with and disciplined for a prison offence. He was refused legal assistance at his hearing, and it was accepted that the proceedings involved the determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of article 6 of the Convention, that the deputy controller was not an independent tribunal and that the appellant was wrongly denied legal representation of his own choosing, and the appeal was limited to damages.
Held: The ECHR has been reluctant to allow a violation of article 6 to be, in itself, just satisfaction under article 41 only where the Court finds a causal connection between the violation found and the loss for which an applicant claims to be compensated. Where, having found a violation of article 6, the ECHR has made an award of monetary compensation under article 41, under either of the heads of general damages it considered in this opinion, whether for loss of procedural opportunity or anxiety and frustration, the sums awarded have been noteworthy for their modesty. It was argued awards should not be on the low side as compared with tortious awards, and that English courts should be free to depart from the scale of damages awarded by the European Court using English awards as comparators. That was incorrect the purpose of the 1998 Act was to avoid for claimants the need to go to Strasbourg, not to make greater awards than would be available there. The finding itself should be treated as just satisfaction save only in exceptional circumstances.
Lord Bingham pointed out that Convention claims have very different objectives from civil actions. Where civil actions are designed essentially to compensate claimants for their losses, Convention claims are intended rather to uphold minimum human rights standards and to vindicate those rights.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

Citations:

[2005] UKHL 14, Times 18-Feb-2005, [2005] 1 WLR 673

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5, Human Rights Act 1998 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina (Carroll and Another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Regina (Greenfield) v Same CA 19-Jul-2001
The applicants had been disciplined whilst in prison, and suffered various penalties including the loss of remission. They argued that the penalties had been imposed in breach of their human rights and that the protection given for intimate searches . .
Cited – Piersack v Belgium ECHR 1-Oct-1982
Hudoc applicant convicted of murder complained that his right to a fair trial under Article 6(1) had been denied because the trial court had been presided over by a Judge who, when senior deputy procureur, had . .
Cited – GW v United Kingdom ECHR 15-Jun-2004
. .
Cited – Ezeh and Connors v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Jul-2002
The applicants were serving prisoners. They had been the subject of disciplinary proceedings in which they had been denied the right to representation. They claimed an infringement of their right to a fair trial.
Held: Both proceedings had . .
Cited – Bonisch v Austria ECHR 6-May-1985
Hudoc ‘. . . in the present case an award of just satisfaction can only be based on the fact that the applicant did not have, before the Austrian courts, the benefit of the guarantees of Article 6(1).’ . .
Cited – Anufrijeva v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 22-Mar-2002
Three asylum-seekers brought claims of breach of their Article 8 rights. One complained of a local authority’s failure to provide accommodation to meet special needs, the other two of maladministration and delay in the handling of their asylum . .
Cited – De Cubber v Belgium ECHR 26-Oct-1984
The applicant a Belgian, had been convicted of forgery. He said that the court had not been an impartial tribunal because one of the judges had also acted as an investigating judge in his case. Amongst the grounds on which it was contended that . .
Cited – Perks and others v The United Kingdom ECHR 12-Oct-1999
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 5-1; Art. 5-5 inapplicable; Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of Art. 6-3-c; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award (Perks); Non-pecuniary damage . .
Cited – Delta v France ECHR 19-Dec-1990
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-d; Damage – financial award; Costs and expenses – claim rejected . .
Cited – Vidal v Belgium ECHR 22-Apr-1992
Hudoc Violation of Art. 6; Just satisfaction reserved . .
Cited – Pelissier and Sassi v France ECHR 25-Mar-1999
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-a; Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-b; Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and . .
Cited – Benham v United Kingdom ECHR 8-Feb-1995
Legal Aid was wrongfully refused where a tax or fine defaulter was liable to imprisonment, and the lack of a proper means enquiry, made imprisonment of poll tax defaulter unlawful. A poll tax defaulter had been wrongly committed to prison by . .
Cited – Findlay v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Feb-1997
The applicant complained that the members of a court-martial were appointed by the Convening Officer, who was closely linked to the prosecuting authorities. The members of the court-martial were subordinate in rank to the Convening Officer who had . .
Cited – Zielinski v France ECHR 28-Oct-1999
Hudoc The applicants challenged a retrospective change in employment law under article 6(1).
Held: The court stated that while in principle the legislature is not precluded in civil matters from adopting . .
Cited – Edwards and Lewis v United Kingdom ECHR 27-Oct-2004
E had been convicted of possession of heroin with intent to supply, and L of possession of counterfeit currency. In each case public interest certificates had been obtained to withold evidence from them. The judge had refused requests to exclude . .
Cited – Kingsley v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Nov-2000
The judicial review procedure which restricted the matters which it considered so as to exclude consideration of the allegation by the applicant that the tribunal whose decision he challenged had not been impartial, was insufficient to support the . .
Cited – Polskiego v Poland ECHR 21-Sep-2004
. .
Cited – Kingsley v The United Kingdom (No 2) ECHR 28-May-2002
The finding that a party had been denied a fair trial may of itself be sufficient compensation. The applicant had been excluded from management of licensed casinos. The appeal board had been found to have given the appearance of bias against him. . .
Cited – Lewis v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Nov-2003
Police had made secret tape recordings of conversations in the claimant’s home, which recordings had later been used as evidence against him, and had led to his conviction.
Held: At the time of the recordings there was no statutory system . .
Cited – Edwards and Lewis v The United Kingdom ECHR 22-Jul-2003
(Commission) The claimants said that the procedures used to secure their convictions amounted to entrapment, and that UK criminal procedures did not give sufficient protection so as to provide a fair trial. One was arrested with heroin, and the . .
Cited – Davies v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Jul-2002
The applicant had been subject to applications for his disqualification from acting as a company director. The Secretary of State waited until the last day before issuing proceedings, and the proceedings were then delayed another three years pending . .
Cited – Goddi v Italy ECHR 9-Apr-1984
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-3-c; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award . .
Cited – Hooper v United Kingdom ECHR 16-Nov-2004
The defendant had appeared in court on a charge of assault. The magistrate considered that he might be unruly and withoutmore bound him over to keep the peace. In the absence of any surety, he was committed to custody.
Held: The proceedings . .
Cited – Colozza v Italy ECHR 12-Feb-1985
The defendant complained that he had been tried and convicted in his absence.
Held: The right to a fair trial had been breached: ‘the object and purpose of [article 6] taken as a whole show that a person ‘charged with a criminal offence’ is . .
Cited – Weeks v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-Mar-1987
The applicant, aged 17, was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment in the interests of public safety, being considered by the trial judge on appeal to be dangerous.
Held: ‘The court agrees with the Commission and the . .
Cited – O v The United Kingdom ECHR 8-Jul-1987
Hudoc Violation of Art. 6-1; Just satisfaction reserved
Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Costs and expenses – struck out of the list (friendly settlement); . .
Cited – Lechner And Hess v Austria ECHR 23-Apr-1987
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses . .
Cited – Regina (Bernard and Another) v Enfield Borough Council Admn 25-Oct-2002
The claimants were husband and wife. They had six children. The wife was severely disabled and confined to a wheelchair. The defendant Council provided the family with a small house but in breach, as they ultimately accepted, of section 21(1) (a) of . .
Cited – De Geouffre De La Pradelle v France ECHR 16-Dec-1992
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 13; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses . .
Cited – Migon v Poland ECHR 25-Jun-2002
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-4; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) – claim rejected
‘In the present case, . .
Cited – Robins v The United Kingdom ECHR 23-Sep-1997
Over-long delay by court system in settling amount of costs constituted breach of human rights; order made in 1991, not settled till 1995 . .
Cited – KB and Others, Regina (on the Applications of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal Admn 23-Apr-2002
Damages were claimed by three mental health patients whose rights under Article 5(4) had been infringed because of inordinate delay in processing their claims to mental health review tribunals.
Held: Article 5.5 did not make an award of . .
Cited – Osman v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-Oct-1998
Police’s Complete Immunity was Too Wide
(Grand Chamber) A male teacher developed an obsession with a male pupil. He changed his name by deed poll to the pupil’s surname. He was required to teach at another school. The pupil’s family’s property was subjected to numerous acts of vandalism, . .
Cited – Nikolova v Bulgaria ECHR 25-Mar-1999
(Grand Chamber) The claimant had been detained for long periods after coming under suspicion of theft of large sums. Her detention had initially been ordered by prosecutors. Her initial appeals against her detention were also decided by prosecutors. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Begum (otherwise SB), Regina (on the Application of) v Denbigh High School HL 22-Mar-2006
The student, a Muslim wished to wear a full Islamic dress, the jilbab, but this was not consistent with the school’s uniform policy. She complained that this interfered with her right to express her religion.
Held: The school’s appeal . .
Cited – Watkins v Home Office and others HL 29-Mar-2006
The claimant complained of misfeasance in public office by the prisons for having opened and read protected correspondence whilst he was in prison. The respondent argued that he had suffered no loss. The judge had found that bad faith was . .
Cited – Van Colle v Hertfordshire Police QBD 10-Mar-2006
The claimants claimed for the estate of their murdered son. He had been waiting to give evidence in a criminal trial, and had asked the police for support having received threats. Other witnesses had also suffered intimidation including acts of . .
Cited – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 29-Mar-2006
The applicant had dual Iraqi and British nationality. He was detained by British Forces in Iraq under suspicion of terrorism, and interned.
Held: His appeal failed. The UN resolution took priority over the European Convention on Human Rights . .
Cited – Van Colle and Another v Chief Constable of the Hertfordshire Police CA 24-Apr-2007
The deceased had acted as a witness in an intended prosecution. He had sought protection after being threatened. No effective protection was provided, and he was murdered. The chief constable appealed a finding of liability.
Held: The . .
Cited – Somerville v Scottish Ministers HL 24-Oct-2007
The claimants complained of their segregation while in prison. Several preliminary questions were to be decided: whether damages might be payable for breach of a Convention Right; wheher the act of a prison governor was the act of the executive; . .
Cited – Dobson and others v Thames Water Utilities Ltd and Another CA 29-Jan-2009
The claimants complained of odours and mosquitoes affecting their properties from the activities of the defendants in the conduct of their adjoining Sewage Treatment plant. The issue was as to the rights of non title holders to damages in nuisance . .
Cited – Faulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another SC 1-May-2013
The applicants had each been given a life sentence, but having served the minimum term had been due to have the continued detention reviewed to establish whether or not continued detention was necessary for the protection of the pblic. It had not . .
Cited – Michael and Others v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police and Another SC 28-Jan-2015
The claimants asserted negligence in the defendant in failing to provide an adequate response to an emergency call, leading, they said to the death of their daughter at the hands of her violent partner. They claimed also under the 1998 Act. The . .
Cited – Shahid v Scottish Ministers (Scotland) SC 14-Oct-2015
The appellant convicted of a racially-aggravated vicious murder. Since conviction he had spent almost five years in segregation from other prisoners. The appellant now alleged that some very substantial periods of segregation had been in breach of . .
Cited – Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis v DSD and Another SC 21-Feb-2018
Two claimants had each been sexually assaulted by a later notorious, multiple rapist. Each had made complaints to police about their assaults but said that no effective steps had been taken to investigate the serious complaints.
Held: The . .
Cited – Lee-Hirons v Secretary of State for Justice SC 27-Jul-2016
The appellant had been detained in a mental hospital after a conviction. Later released, he was recalled, but he was not given written reasons as required by a DoH circular. However the SS referred the recall immediately to the Tribunal. He appealed . .
Cited – Hemmati and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 27-Nov-2019
The Home Secretary appealed from a finding that illegally entered asylum seekers had been unlawfully detained pending removal. The five claimants had travelled through other EU member states before entering the UK. The court considered inter alia . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Damages, Human Rights

Updated: 14 September 2022; Ref: scu.222767

Faraday v Carmarthenshire County Council (Formerly Llanelli Borough Council): CA 1 May 1997

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1585

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See also – Faraday v Carmarthenshire County Council CA 10-May-2004
The claimant appealed against an award of compensation on the compulsory acquisition of his land by the defendant.
Held: The award was incorrect. The authority had wrongly deducted a sum in respect of ‘freed up time’ – which would have allowed . .

Cited by:

See also – Faraday v Carmarthenshire County Council CA 10-May-2004
The claimant appealed against an award of compensation on the compulsory acquisition of his land by the defendant.
Held: The award was incorrect. The authority had wrongly deducted a sum in respect of ‘freed up time’ – which would have allowed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Damages

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.141981

Challinor and 20 Others v Juliet Bellis and Co and Egan: ChD 19 Mar 2013

The court considered the correct approach to the award of statutory interest.
Held: Hildyard J said: ‘As to (1), it seems to me that the Court’s overall approach in the authorities cited to me is to distinguish between (a) cases relating to money lost in or in relation to the conduct of a business where the general assumption would be that money lost or detained would have to be replaced by money borrowed to maintain that business and (b) cases where any award is an accretion to the funds of the claimant, rather than replacement of monies which the claimant had previously had and put to use.
In cases of type (a), the Court seeks to identify an appropriate interest rate, adopting a broad brush to establish a rate approximating to the cost that a claimant in that line of business or activity would have incurred in borrowing money to replace the money lost or detained. In cases of type (b), of which the paradigm may be personal injury cases, the Court seeks to identify an appropriate rate to represent a minimum return to put the claimant in the position he or she would have been if the money had been placed on deposit at the date of the event that gave rise to the claim.’
Hildyard J summarised as follows: ‘(1) At least where there is no direct evidence as to what the parties knew and did not know, and as a corollary of the objective approach to the interpretation of contracts, the question is what knowledge a reasonable observer would have expected and believed both contracting parties to have had and each to have assumed the other to have had, at the time of their contract ;
(2) that includes specialist or unusual knowledge which only parties entering into a contractual engagement of the sort in question might reasonably be assumed to have; and it also includes knowledge which it is to be inferred, from the nature of the actions they have in fact undertaken, that they had or must have had;
(3) however, it does not include information that a reasonable observer would think that the parties merely might have known: that would open the gate too far to subjective or idiosyncratic speculation;
(4) the fact that material is readily available or notorious may support an inference as to what the parties actually knew;
(5) but (subject to (6) below) where it is demonstrated that one or more of the parties did not in fact have knowledge of the matter in question such knowledge is not to be imputed; nor is the test what reasonable diligence would or might have revealed: in either case that would be inappropriately to introduce impermissible concepts of constructive notice or a duty (actionable or otherwise) to make inquiries or investigations;
(6) the exception is that a reasonable person cannot be assumed to be in ignorance of clear and well known legal principles affecting or incidental the contractual engagement in question.”

Judges:

Hildyard J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 620 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Challinor and Others v Juliet Bellis and Co (A Firm) ChD 9-Dec-2011
Appeal against order granting summary judgement. . .
See Also – Challinor and Others v Juliet Bellis and Co and Another ChD 25-Feb-2013
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Sabic UK Petrochemicals Ltd v Punj Lloyd Ltd TCC 10-Oct-2013
Dispute as to the approach applicable on calculation of statutory interest on judgment.
Held: Interest was awarded at the normal commercial rate. The correct question was how the Claimant ‘could have put itself in possession of the funds that . .
Cited – Lehman Brothers International (Europe) v Exotix Partners Llp ChD 9-Sep-2019
The parties had contracted to trade global depository notes issued by the Peruvian government. Each made mistakes as to their true value, thinking them scraps worth a few thousand dollars, whereas their true value was over $8m. On the defendant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.471965

Lanceley v Wirral Borough Council: UTLC 9 May 2011

COMPENSATION – Land Compensation Act 1973 Part I – depreciation by physical factors caused by the use of a new road – noise, vibration, dust, artificial lighting – comparables – compensation assessed at pounds 1,000.

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 175 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Compensation Act 1973

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Damages

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440793

O’ Donoghue and Others v Secretary of State for Transport: UTLC 20 May 2011

UTLC COMPENSATION – compulsory purchase – tubes of subsoil and two slivers of land acquired for Channel Tunnel Rail Link – value – held nominal amount payable as no market for acquired property – compensation of pounds 50 awarded in each case.

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 203 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Damages

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440791

Ley v Hamilton: HL 1935

The House approved awards of punitive or exemplary damages. Lord Atkin said: said that damages awards for defamation were not arrived at ‘by determining the ‘real’ damage and adding to that a sum by way of vindictive or punitive damages. It is precisely because the ‘ real’ damage cannot be ascertained and established that the damages are at large. It is impossible to track the scandal, to know what quarters the poison may reach; it is impossible to weigh at all closely the compensation which will recompense a man or a woman for the insult offered or the pain of a false accusation. No doubt in newspaper libels juries take into account the vast circulations which are justly claimed in present times. The ‘punitive’ element is not something which is or can be added to some known factor which is non-punitive ‘.

Judges:

Lord Atkin

Citations:

(1935) 153 LT 384

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Cassell and Co Ltd v Broome and Another HL 23-Feb-1972
Exemplary Damages Award in Defamation
The plaintiff had been awarded damages for defamation. The defendants pleaded justification. Before the trial the plaintiff gave notice that he wanted additional, exemplary, damages. The trial judge said that such a claim had to have been pleaded. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Defamation

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.223203

Donnelly v Joyce: CA 18 May 1973

A six year old injured his leg in a road accident, and needed daily attention. His mother gave up her job to look after him. The claim for damages on behalf of he boy included the mother’s loss of earnings. This was objected to on the grounds that the boy had incurred no obligation to repay his mother for her services.
Held: the fact that the boy had obtained the necessary care without payment was irrelevant to his claim: ‘The question from what source the plaintiff’s needs have been met, the question who has paid the money or given the services, the question whether or not the plaintiff is or is not under a legal or moral liability to repay, are, so far as the defendant and his liability are concerned, all irrelevant. The plaintiff’s loss, to take this present case, is not the expenditure of money to buy the special boots or to pay for the nursing attention. His loss is the existence of the need for those special boots or for those nursing services, the value of which for purposes of damages – for the purpose of the ascertainment of the amount of his loss – is the proper and reasonable cost of supplying those needs. That, in our judgment, is the key to the problem. So far as the defendant is concerned, the loss is not someone else’s loss. It is the plaintiff’s loss.’

Judges:

Megaw LJ, Davies LJ, Walton LJ

Citations:

[1974] QB 454, [1973] EWCA Civ 2, [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 130, [1973] 3 WLR 514, [1973] 3 All ER 475

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Applied – McAll v Brooks CA 1984
After a road accident the plaintiff hired a car. His insurance brokers provided the car under an arrangement that was alleged to be illegal insurance business and would have prevented them from being subrogated to the plaintiff’s claim for damages . .
Cited – Dimond v Lovell HL 12-May-2000
A claimant sought as part of her damages for the cost of hiring a care whilst her own was off the road after an accident caused by the defendant. She agreed with a hire company to hire a car, but payment was delayed until the claim was settled.
Doubted – Hunt v Severs HL 7-Sep-1994
The tortfeasor, a member of the claimant’s family provided her with voluntary nursing care after the injury. The equivalent cost of that care, was recoverable, but would be held on trust for the carer. The underlying rationale of English Law is to . .
Cited – Giles v Thompson, Devlin v Baslington (Conjoined Appeals) HL 1-Jun-1993
Car hire companies who pursued actions in motorists’ names to recover the costs of hiring a replacement vehicle after an accident, from negligent drivers, were not acting in a champertous and unlawful manner. Lord Mustill said: ‘there exists in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages

Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.195963

Brasserie du Pecheur v Bundesrepublik Deutschland; Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame and others (4): ECJ 5 Mar 1996

Member states may be liable to individuals for their failure to implement EU laws. The right of individuals to rely on directly applicable provisions of the EC Treaty before national courts is not sufficient in itself to ensure full and complete implementation of the Treaty.
LMA Brasserie de Pecheur – Claim by a French brewery for losses suffered as a result Germany’s purity of beer laws, in respect of which Germany had been found to be in breach of Art.30EC – freedom of movement of goods. The German court upon receiving the ruling ultimately awarded no damages to the plaintiffs on the basis that there had been no direct causal connection between Germany’s sufficiently serious breach and the damage suffered.
Factortame – Spanish fisherman had succeeded on substantive issue of UK’ s imposition of conditions for registration as a British vessel in breach of Art.52EC (right to establishment). They now sought damages for losses caused to them as a result of UK’s breach. The English Divisional Court on receiving and applying the ruling found that there had been a sufficiently serious breach to give rise to liability, but that although compensation was payable, exemplary damages would not be awarded. The amount of damages was not assessed at this hearing.
Held: Does decision turn on discretion on implementation?

  • State liability is not confined to failure to implement EC Directives
  • A remedy under Francovich should be available whether or not there were other means by which Community rights might be enforced, i.e. on the principles of direct and indirect effect.
  • A state should only be liable for ‘manifest and serious’ breach of EC law.
  • The 3 conditions that must be met (altered as a result of the increased scope given to the principle in Brasserie).
  • The rule of law infringed must be intended to confer rights on individuals.
  • The breach must be sufficiently serious, and
  • There must be a direct causal link between the breach of the obligation resting on the State’s failure and the damage suffered by the injured parties.
    ECJ The application of the principle that Member States are obliged to make good loss and damage caused to individuals by breaches of Community law for which they can be held responsible cannot be discarded where the breach relates to a provision of directly applicable Community law.
    The right of individuals to rely on directly effective provisions before national courts is only a minimum guarantee and is not sufficient in itself to ensure the full and complete implementation of Community law. That right, whose purpose is to ensure that provisions of Community law prevail over national provisions, cannot, in every case, secure for individuals the benefit of the rights conferred on them by Community law and, in particular, avoid their sustaining damage as a result of a breach of Community law attributable to a Member State.
    Since the Treaty contains no provision expressly and specifically governing the consequences of breaches of Community law by Member States, it is for the Court, in pursuance of the task conferred on it by Article 164 of the Treaty of ensuring that in the interpretation and application of the Treaty the law is observed, to rule on such a question in accordance with generally accepted methods of interpretation, in particular by reference to the fundamental principles of the Community legal system and, where necessary, general principles common to the legal systems of the Member States.
    The principle that Member States are obliged to make good loss or damage caused to individuals by breaches of Community law for which they can be held responsible is applicable where the national legislature was responsible for the breaches. That principle, which is inherent in the system of the Treaty, holds good for any case in which a Member State breaches Community law, whatever be the organ of the State whose act or omission was responsible for the breach, and, in view of the fundamental requirement of the Community legal order that Community law be uniformly applied, the obligation to make good damage enshrined in that principle cannot depend on domestic rules as to the division of powers between constitutional authorities.
    In order to define the conditions under which a Member State may incur liability for damage caused to individuals by a breach of Community law, account should first be taken of the principles inherent in the Community legal order which form the basis for State liability, namely, the full effectiveness of Community rules and the effective protection of the rights which they confer and the obligation to cooperate imposed on Member States by Article 5 of the Treaty. Reference should also be made to the rules which have been defined on non-contractual liability on the part of the Community, in so far as, under the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty, they were constructed on the basis of the general principles common to the laws of the Member States and it is not appropriate, in the absence of particular justification, to have different rules governing the liability of the Community and the liability of Member States in like circumstances, since the protection of the rights which individuals derive from Community law cannot vary depending on whether a national authority or a Community authority is responsible for the damage. Accordingly, where a breach of Community law by a Member State is attributable to the national legislature acting in a field in which it has a wide discretion to make legislative choices, individuals suffering loss or injury thereby are entitled to reparation where the rule of Community law breached is intended to confer rights upon them, the breach is sufficiently serious and there is a direct causal link between the breach and the damage sustained by the individuals. Subject to that reservation, the State must make good the consequences of the loss or damage caused by the breach of Community law attributable to it, in accordance with its national law on liability. However, the conditions laid down by the applicable national laws must not be less favourable than those relating to similar domestic claims or framed in such a way as in practice to make it impossible or excessively difficult to obtain reparation. In particular, pursuant to the national legislation which it applies, the national court cannot make reparation of loss or damage conditional upon fault (intentional or negligent) on the part of the organ of the State responsible for the breach, going beyond that of a sufficiently serious breach of Community law. The decisive test for finding that a breach of Community law is sufficiently serious is whether the Member State concerned manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits on its discretion. The factors which the competent court may take into consideration include the clarity and precision of the rule breached, the measure of discretion left by that rule to the national or Community authorities, whether the infringement and the damage caused was intentional or involuntary, whether any error of law was excusable or inexcusable, the fact that the position taken by a Community institution may have contributed towards the omission, and the adoption or retention of national measures or practices contrary to Community law. On any view, a breach of Community law will be sufficiently serious if it has persisted despite a judgment finding the infringement in question to be established, or a preliminary ruling or settled case-law of the Court on the matter from which it is clear that the conduct in question constituted an infringement.
    Reparation from Member States for loss or damage caused to individuals as a result of breaches of Community law must be commensurate with the loss or damage sustained. In the absence of relevant Community provisions, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to set the criteria for determining the extent of reparation. However, those criteria must not be less favourable than those applying to similar claims based on domestic law and must not be such as in practice to make it impossible or excessively difficult to obtain reparation. National legislation which generally limits the damage for which reparation may be granted to damage done to certain, specifically protected individual interests not including loss of profit by individuals is not compatible with Community law. Moreover, it must be possible to award specific damages, such as the exemplary damages provided for by English law, pursuant to claims or actions founded on Community law, if such damages may be awarded pursuant to similar claims or actions founded on domestic law.
    The obligation for Member States to make good loss or damage caused to individuals by breaches of Community law attributable to the State cannot be limited to damage sustained after the delivery of a judgment of the Court finding the infringement in question. Since the right to reparation under Community law exists where the requisite conditions are satisfied, to allow the obligation of the Member State concerned to make reparation to be confined to loss or damage sustained after delivery of a judgment of the Court finding the infringement in question would amount to calling in question the right to reparation conferred by the Community legal order. In addition, to make the reparation of loss or damage conditional upon the requirement that there must have been a prior finding by the Court of an infringement of Community law attributable to the Member State concerned would be contrary to the principle of the effectiveness of Community law, since it would preclude any right to reparation so long as the presumed infringement had not been the subject of an action brought by the Commission under Article 169 of the Treaty and of a finding of an infringement by the Court. Rights arising for individuals out of Community provisions having direct effect in the domestic legal systems of the Member States cannot depend on the Commission’s assessment of the expediency of taking action against a Member State pursuant to Article 169 of the Treaty or on the delivery by the Court of any judgment finding an infringement.

    • Judges:

    Rodriguez Iglesias (Rapporteur), President

    Citations:

    Times 07-Mar-1996, [1996] 2 WLR 506, [1996] IRLR 267, (1996) 1 CMLR 889, C-46/93, [1996] QB 404, C-48/93, [1996] ECR 1-1029, [1996] EUECJ C-46/93, [1996] CEC 295, [1996] All ER (EC) 301

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    European

    Cited by:

    Applied – Regina v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ex parte Lay and Gage Admn 15-May-1995
    The claimants sought damages for the wrong interpretation of the law by the Ministry, which had restricted their rights to milk quota.
    Held: Making an administrative decision which was in breach of European law was not enough in itself to . .
    Cited – Kobler v Republik Osterreich ECJ 30-Sep-2003
    The claimant’s claim had been presented to the Supreme Administrative Court in Austria, who had referred a question to the ECJ. Following the Schoning decision, the court withdrew the referral, and dismissed the claim. He now claimed damages from . .
    Cited – Phonographic Performance Limited v Department of Trade and Industry HM Attorney General ChD 23-Jul-2004
    The claimant represented the interests of copyright holders, and complained that the defendant had failed to implement the Directive properly, leaving them unable properly to collect royalties in the music rental market. The respondent argued that . .
    Cited – Autologic Holdings Plc and others v Commissioners of Inland Revenue HL 28-Jul-2005
    Taxpayer companies challenged the way that the revenue restricted claims for group Corporation Tax relief for subsidiary companies in Europe. The issue was awaiting a decision of the European Court. The Revenue said that the claims now being made by . .
    Cited – Feakins and Another v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Civ 1513) CA 9-Dec-2005
    The department complained that the defendants had entered into a transaction with their farm at an undervalue so as to defeat its claim for recovery of sums due. The transaction used the grant of a tenancy by the first chargee.
    Held: The . .
    Cited – Somerville v Scottish Ministers HL 24-Oct-2007
    The claimants complained of their segregation while in prison. Several preliminary questions were to be decided: whether damages might be payable for breach of a Convention Right; wheher the act of a prison governor was the act of the executive; . .
    Cited – Test Claimants In The Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Inland Revenue SC 23-May-2012
    The European Court had found the UK to have unlawfully treated differently payment of franked dividends between subsidiaries of UK companies according to whether all the UK subsidiaries were themselves UK based, thus prejudicing European . .
    Cited – Chester, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 16-Oct-2013
    The two applicants were serving life sentences for murder. Each sought damages for the unlawful withdrawal of their rights to vote in elections, and the failure of the British parliament to take steps to comply with the judgment.
    Held: The . .
    Cited – Miller and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Exiting The European Union SC 24-Jan-2017
    Parliament’s Approval if statute rights affected
    In a referendum, the people had voted to leave the European Union. That would require a notice to the Union under Article 50 TEU. The Secretary of State appealed against an order requiring Parliamentary approval before issuing the notice, he saying . .
    Cited – Nuclear Decommissioning Authority v Energysolutions EU Ltd (Now Called ATK Energy EU Ltd) SC 11-Apr-2017
    This is an appeal on preliminary points of European Union and domestic law regarding the circumstances in which damages may be recoverable for failure to comply with the requirements of the Public Procurement Directive (Parliament and Council . .
    Cited – Hemmati and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 27-Nov-2019
    The Home Secretary appealed from a finding that illegally entered asylum seekers had been unlawfully detained pending removal. The five claimants had travelled through other EU member states before entering the UK. The court considered inter alia . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Constitutional, Damages, European

    Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.161075

    Lilly Icos Llc and Others v 8Pm Chemists Ltd and Another: ChD 31 Jul 2009

    The defendants sought assessment of their damages against the claimants under injunctions granted to the claimants and undertakings given.
    Held: Arnold J surveyed the applicable legal principles.

    Judges:

    Arnold J

    Citations:

    [2009] EWHC 1905 (Ch), [2010] Bus LR D43, [2010] FSR 4

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Cited by:

    Cited – Soutzos v Asombang and Others ChD 21-Jun-2011
    The claimant had obtained a freezing order against the defendants. His claim having been dismissed, the court now considered if and what damages should be paid under the cross-undertaking he had given.
    Held: Setting out and applying the . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Damages, Intellectual Property

    Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.368639

    Ricci v Masons: 1993

    The tenant sued his solicitor who had failed to make application to the court in time to secure his right to a new tenancy. As a result, the tenant had had to accept a five year contracted out lease, as opposed to a 10 year lease with a break clause.
    Held: The damages were to be measured as the difference in value between the two leases, in this case set at pounds 100,000.

    Citations:

    [1993] 3 EG LR 159

    Statutes:

    Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Landlord and Tenant, Professional Negligence, Damages

    Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.216642

    Phonographic Performance Ltd v Reader: ChD 22 Mar 2005

    The claimant had in the past obtained an injunction to prevent the defendant broadcasting without their licence musical works belonging to their members at his nightclub. The defendant had obtained a licence, but had not renewed it. The claimants in this action sought additional damages under section 97.
    Held: Where the underlying infringement is established to the standard required to support an application to commit for breach of an injunction, then there is no arguable defence to a claim for copyright infringement; and the circumstance that the infringements complained of are committed in breach of a Court Order render either an enquiry as to additional damages or, in a proper case, a summary award of additional damages to the copyright owner. In this case the court awarded as additional damages the costs of the enquiry agents and a sum equal to the unpaid licence fees down to the date of the application to commit.

    Judges:

    Pumfrey J

    Citations:

    [2005] EWHC 416 (Ch), [2005] EMLR 26, [2005] FSR 42,

    Links:

    Bailii

    Statutes:

    Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 97

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Citing:

    Cited – British Motor Trade Association v Salvadori 1949
    The plaintiff was a trade association whose policy was to enforce the fixing of prices of motor cars, at a time when the demand for cars greatly exceeded the supply, so that there were large profits to be made by anyone who could acquire a new car . .
    Cited – Morton – Norwich Products v Intercen (No 2) ChD 1981
    The plaintiffs had alleged patent infringement and now sought to recover the costs of the action it had had to take for discovery as against HM Customs and Excise, which they said had been necessary to discover the extent of the concealed fraud . .
    Cited – Fairclough and Sons v The Manchester Ship Canal Co CA 1897
    The court considered the remedies for a contempt of court.
    Held: Lord Russell CJ said: ‘We desire to make it clear that in such cases no casual or accidental and unintentional disobedience of an Order would justify either a commitment or . .
    Cited – Midland Marts v Hobday ChD 1989
    The court considered a claim for costs on an application for committal of the defendant for infringement.
    Held: Vinelott J said: ‘I can see no reason in principle why the Court, if satisfied that the facts proved at the hearing of a motion to . .
    Cited – Sony Computer Entertainment v Paul Owen ChD 23-Jan-2002
    Claim for infringement – sale of chip designed to bypass country code control on the claimant’s gaming machines.
    Held: An infringement of copyright committed in breach of an injunction restraining such infringement can found an award of . .
    Mentioned – WB v H Bauer Publishing Ltd 2002
    . .
    Cited – Nottinghamshire Healthcare National Health Service Trust v News Group Newspapers Ltd ChD 14-Mar-2002
    The claimant sought additional and punitive damages for infringement of copyright by the defendant.
    Held: The section of the 1988 Act should not normally justify an award of purely punitive or exemplary damages. The existence of several . .
    Cited – Springsteen v Flute International Ltd and Others PatC 10-Dec-1998
    The court awarded andpound;1 per CD produced and not sold, and andpound;5 per CD produced and sold for infringement by pressing CDs of recordings of the claimant artist’s performances. The court considered the personal responsibility of the director . .
    Cited – Peninsula Business Services Limited v Citation Plc 2004
    The court awarded 100% of a notional licence fee by way of additional statutory damages for copyright infringement. . .

    Cited by:

    Cited – Phonographic Performance Ltd v Ellis (T/A Bla Bla Bar) CA 18-Dec-2018
    Additional infrimgement damages were not a fine.
    The Society had succeeded in its claim of copyright infringement. The defendant having continued his breaches, it sought additional damages and committal for contempt. Having granted the committal the trial judge declined to award additional . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Intellectual Property, Contempt of Court, Damages

    Updated: 09 September 2022; Ref: scu.263691

    Roe v Sheffield City Council, South Yorkshire Light Rail Ltd, South Yorkshire Supertram Ltd, Balfour Beatty Power Construction Ltd: CA 23 Mar 2004

    Judges:

    Lord Justice Kennedy Lord Justice Sedley Lord Justice Scott Baker

    Citations:

    [2004] EWCA Civ 329

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Citing:

    See Also – Roe v Sheffield City Council and others CA 17-Jan-2003
    The claimant sought damages after his car was involved in an accident when a wheel struck a part of a tramway standing proud of the road surface. The defendant argued that they were excused liability by the 1988 Act, incorporating the effects of the . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Personal Injury, Damages

    Updated: 09 September 2022; Ref: scu.194841

    LHS v First-Tier Tribunal (Criminal Injuries Compensation) and Another: Admn 21 Apr 2015

    The claimant as a child had taken methadone left about the house by his parents. He sought compensation from the CICB. The parties now disagreed as to the calculation of interest of the damages award.

    Judges:

    Jay J

    Citations:

    [2015] EWHC 1077 (Admin), [2015] WLR(D) 181

    Links:

    Bailii, WLRD

    Statutes:

    Damages Act 1996

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Personal Injury, Damages

    Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.545691

    Wiseman v Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd: QBD 29 Jun 2006

    The claimant said that he was refused permission to board a flight by the defendants representative without paying a bribe, and was publicly humiliated for not doing so.
    Held: Whilst the claimant could recover for his own additional expenses, he could not do so for the expenses of his girlfriend who had been unable to meet him for the delay in his return. Various other heads of claim failed as too remote.

    Judges:

    Eady J

    Citations:

    [2006] EWHC 1566 (QB)

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Citing:

    Cited – Hadley v Baxendale Exc 23-Feb-1854
    Contract Damages; What follows the Breach Naturaly
    The plaintiffs had sent a part of their milling machinery for repair. The defendants contracted to carry it, but delayed in breach of contract. The plaintiffs claimed damages for the earnings lost through the delay. The defendants appealed, saying . .
    Cited – Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries CA 1949
    The plaintiffs claimed for loss of the profits from their laundry business because of late delivery of a boiler.
    Held: The Court did not regard ‘loss of profits from the laundry business’ as a single type of loss. They distinguished losses . .
    Cited – Czarnikow (C ) Ltd v Koufos; The Heron II HL 17-Oct-1967
    The vessel had arrived late at Basrah in breach of the terms of the charterparty. The House was asked as to the measure of damages. The charterers had intended to sell the cargo of sugar promptly upon arrival, and now claimed for the fall in the . .
    Cited – Watts and Co v Morrow CA 30-Jul-1991
    The plaintiff had bought a house on the faith of the defendant’s report that there were only limited defects requiring repair. In fact the defects were much more extensive. The defendant surveyor appealed against an award of damages after his . .
    Cited – Hobbs v London and South Western Railway Co 1875
    The court considered an application for damages for inconvenience in a breach of contract case: ‘for the mere inconvenience, such as annoyance and loss of temper, or vexation, or for being disappointed in a particular thing which you have set your . .
    Cited – Burton v Pinkerton 1867
    The Plaintiff agreed to serve on the defendant’s ship for twelve months, but left it when the Defendant berthed in a Peruvian port with a cargo which included ammunition, even though Peru was at war with Spain (”two powers at peace with England’). . .
    Cited – Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI); Mahmud v Bank of Credit and Commerce International HL 12-Jun-1997
    Allowance of Stigma Damages
    The employees claimed damages, saying that the way in which their employer had behaved during their employment had led to continuing losses, ‘stigma damages’ after the termination.
    Held: It is an implied term of any contract of employment that . .
    Cited – Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd CA 16-Oct-1972
    The plaintiff had booked a holiday through the defendant travel tour company. He claimed damages after the holiday failed to live up to expectations.
    Held: In appropriate cases where one party contracts to provide entertainment and enjoyment, . .
    Cited – Addis v Gramophone Company Limited HL 26-Jul-1909
    Mr Addis was wrongfully and contumeliously dismissed from his post as the defendant’s manager in Calcutta. He sought additional damages for the manner of his dismissal.
    Held: It did not matter whether the claim was under wrongful dismissal. . .
    Cited – Cook v Swinfen CA 1967
    The plaintiff could not recover damages for the mental distress of conducting litigation. The court found it difficult to draw the line as to where such damage could be identified. In this case the damage could not reasonably be said to have flowed . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Contract, Damages

    Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.243164

    Brill v Interactive Business Communications Ltd: EAT 25 Nov 2010

    EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Damages for breach of contract
    Appeal on the construction of the Claimant’s contract of employment in relation to the payment of commission arising before termination. Held on a proper construction of the contract of employment that such commissions were not payable after termination. The Employment Tribunal had properly considered all relevant issues and was entitled to reach the decision it did. Appeal dismissed.

    Judges:

    Birtles J

    Citations:

    [2010] UKEAT 0239 – 10 – 2511

    Links:

    Bailii

    Employment, Damages

    Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.432797

    Dalling v R J Heale and Co Ltd: CA 5 Apr 2011

    The claimant sought damages after injuring his head at work. He suffered a a second accident elsewhere whilst intoxicated, but said that the first injury had left him less able to manage his drinking.

    Judges:

    My P, Smith, Aikens LJJ

    Citations:

    [2011] EWCA Civ 365

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Personal Injury, Damages

    Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.431827

    Kaye v Basingstoke Corporation: LT 1968

    The Tribunal discussed compensation on compulsory purchase, and how the extent of the underlying scheme was to be identified: ‘Before the 1939 war it is broadly, perhaps entirely, true to say that the application of the common law rule was comparatively simple in so far as discovering what ‘the scheme underlying the acquisition’ was. There was usually an Act, public but more often private, or an Order which defined the scheme and the area wherein it was to operate. But in the post-war years a new conception of planning led to a series of measures which gave to local authorities, of one kind or another, planning powers of a much less detailed although more far-reaching character.’

    Judges:

    Sir Michael Rowe QC

    Citations:

    (1968) 20 P and CR 417

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Cited by:

    Cited – Waters and others v Welsh Development Agency HL 29-Apr-2004
    Land was to be compulsorily purchased. A large development required the land to be used to create a nature reserve. The question was how and if at all the value of the overall scheme should be considered when assessing the compensation for this . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Land, Damages

    Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.196517

    Nectrus Ltd v UCP Plc: CA 21 Jan 2021

    Application for reconsideration of refusal of leave to appeal.

    Judges:

    Lord Justice Flaux

    Citations:

    [2021] EWCA Civ 57

    Links:

    Bailii, Juciciary

    Statutes:

    Civil Procedure Rules 52.30

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Citing:

    See also – UCP Plc v Nectrus Ltd ComC 21-Feb-2018
    Application for stay pending proceedings in Isle of Man . .
    See also – UCP Plc v Nectrus Ltd ComC 5-Jul-2019
    . .
    Appeal from – UCP Plc v Nectrus Ltd ComC 29-Nov-2019
    Damages assessment . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Damages

    Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.657335

    UCP Plc v Nectrus Ltd: ComC 29 Nov 2019

    Damages assessment

    Judges:

    Sir Michael Burton GBE (sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

    Citations:

    [2019] EWHC 3274 (Comm)

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Citing:

    See Also – UCP Plc v Nectrus Ltd ComC 21-Feb-2018
    Application for stay pending proceedings in Isle of Man . .
    See Also – UCP Plc v Nectrus Ltd ComC 5-Jul-2019
    . .

    Cited by:

    Appeal from – Nectrus Ltd v UCP Plc CA 21-Jan-2021
    Application for reconsideration of refusal of leave to appeal. . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Damages

    Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.646090

    Societe Generale, London Branch v Geys: CA 30 Mar 2011

    The defendant appealed against an award of substantial damages on its summary dismissal of the respondent said to be contractually due to him on termination.
    Held: The appeal was allowed in part. The appellant was dismissed on 18 December 2007.

    Judges:

    Arden, Rimer, Pitchford LJJ

    Citations:

    [2011] IRLR 482, [2011] EWCA Civ 307

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Citing:

    At ChD – Geys v Societe Generale, London Branch ChD 25-Mar-2010
    The claimant said that he was entitled to payment of substantial sums on the determination of his employment contract.
    Held: The court gave judgment for Mr Geys in a sum to be assessed, with a payment on account by 1 April 2010 of Euros 11m . .

    Cited by:

    At CA – Societe Generale, London Branch v Geys SC 19-Dec-2012
    The claimant’s employment by the bank had been terminated. The parties disputed the sums due, and the date of the termination of the contract. The court was asked ‘Does a repudiation of a contract of employment by the employer which takes the form . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Employment, Damages

    Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.431560

    Les Laboratoires Servier and Another v Apotex Inc and Others: PatC 29 Mar 2011

    Arnold J considered what kinds of unlawfulness would engage the ex turpi causa principle.
    Held: a relevant illegality was one which was sufficiently serious in all the circumstances of the case, including in particular whether the illegal act was done with knowledge or deliberately.
    After reviewing the authorities, he said: ‘The main conclusion which I draw from this survey of the cases cited to me is that they confirm that the application of the ex turpi causa rule depends on the circumstances of the case. Significant factors include the knowledge of the claimant at the relevant time, whether the illegality involved intentional or negligent conduct on the part of the claimant and whether the commission of the illegal act was induced by the defendant. It appears from dicta in a number of these cases that it may not be sufficient that the act was criminal if the offence was one of strict liability and the claimant was unaware of the relevant facts. Equally, mere negligence is unlikely to be enough in the circumstances of a claim for contribution or indemnity against another tortfeasor.
    In my judgment none of these authorities establishes that, in the case of acts which are tortious rather than criminal, the rule only applies if the acts involve dishonesty. Furthermore, I consider that such a limitation would not properly reflect the policy considerations which underlie the rule. I accept that there will be situations in which the tort is not sufficiently serious to engage the rule, but what degree of seriousness is sufficient will depend on the circumstances of the case. In my view the key factor in most cases is likely to be the claimant’s state of knowledge at the time of committing the act in question. If the claimant knew the material facts, and particularly if he committed the act in question intentionally, then the rule is likely to apply.’
    Arnold J explained the significance of section 18 of the 1956 Act: ‘S.18 of the 1956 Act created a statutory fiction that infringing copies of copyright works were deemed to belong to the copyright owner. This gave rise to the remedy of conversion damages i.e. damages based on the whole value of the infringing article. It was a provision that often caused surprise even to lawyers and judges other than those who specialised in intellectual property law, let alone to lay people. By the time of Columbia v Robinson it had been widely criticised, and was generally recognised as being anomalous and ripe for repeal. It was duly repealed not long afterwards by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988’.

    Judges:

    Arnold J

    Citations:

    [2011] EWHC 730 (Pat)

    Links:

    Bailii

    Statutes:

    Copyright Act 1956 18

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Cited by:

    Cited – Soutzos v Asombang and Others ChD 21-Jun-2011
    The claimant had obtained a freezing order against the defendants. His claim having been dismissed, the court now considered if and what damages should be paid under the cross-undertaking he had given.
    Held: Setting out and applying the . .
    See Also – Les Laboratoires Servier and Another v Apotex Inc. and Others PatC 11-May-2011
    . .
    Cited – Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp and Others v Harris and Others ChD 5-Feb-2013
    The court was asked whether a copyright owner has a proprietary claim to money derived from infringement of the copyright.
    Held: He did not. No such argument could be shown to have suceeded before. . .
    At Patents Court – Les Laboratoires Servier and Another v Apotex Inc and Others SC 29-Oct-2014
    Ex turpi causa explained
    The parties had disputed the validity a patent and the production of infringing preparations. The english patent had failed and damages were to be awarded, but a Canadian patent remained the defendant now challenged the calculation of damages for . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Intellectual Property, Damages, Torts – Other

    Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.431298

    Faulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice The Parole Board: CA 29 Mar 2011

    The court considered the approriate level of damages where the claimant’s detention had been wrongly extended through a failure to hold a timely review of his continued detention.
    Held: A sum of andpound;10,000 was awarded. The court should not adjust its award according to the degree of probability of release had the violation not occurred.

    Judges:

    Sedley LJ

    Citations:

    [2011] EWCA Civ 349

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Citing:

    Appeal from – Faulkner, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another Admn 5-Jun-2009
    The claimant had sought to challenge his continued detention in prison when his situation should have been reviewed but had not been. As a lifer he had served the time set in his tariff.
    Held: The applicant was unlawfully at large and had not . .
    Main Appeal – Faulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice The Parole Board CA 14-Dec-2010
    The claimant sought damages saying that his detention in prison beyond the minimum period pending a review was unlawful when that review was delayed. He now appealed against dismissal of his claim when he had not appeared at court, being unlawfully . .

    Cited by:

    Cited – Faulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another SC 1-May-2013
    The applicants had each been given a life sentence, but having served the minimum term had been due to have the continued detention reviewed to establish whether or not continued detention was necessary for the protection of the pblic. It had not . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Prisons, Human Rights, Damages

    Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.431245

    Miles v Gilbank: CA 11 May 2006

    The employee claimed she had been bullied by her manager after she became pregnant. She sought damages both from the employer and from the manager personally.
    Held: The manageress was personally liable. The scheme for sex based discrimination was similar to the scheme for race discrimination as regards aiding and abetting as considered in Vento.

    Judges:

    Lord Justice Chadwick Lady Justice Arden Lord Justice Sedley

    Citations:

    [2006] EWCA Civ 543, [2006] IRLR 538, [2006] ICR 1297

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Citing:

    Appeal from – M Miles v J Gilbank EAT 21-Oct-2005
    The employee had succeeded in her claim for sex discrimination after being mistreated when she notified the company of her pregnancy. The company’s manager appealed a finding of joint personal responsibility with the company.
    Held: The appeal . .
    Cited – Anyanwu and Another v South Bank Student Union and Another HL 24-May-2001
    The university had imposed a new constitution on its students union, which resulted in the dismissal of the claimant. He sought to assert racial discrimination.
    Held: The concept of ‘aiding’ somebody in committing discriminatory behaviour . .
    Cited – Vento v The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No 2) CA 20-Dec-2002
    The claimant had been awarded damages for sex discrimination, including a sum of andpound;25,000 for injury to feelings. The respondent appealed.
    Held: The Court of Appeal looked to see whether there had been an error of law in the employment . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Employment, Discrimination, Damages

    Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.241648

    Ramzan v Brookwide Ltd: ChD 8 Oct 2010

    The claimant owned a flying freehold room butting into the defendant’s property. Whilst the claimant’s property was unoccupied, the defendant broke through into the room, blocked off the door to the claimant’s property, and included the room in the flat it then let. The case was transferred to the High court to consider issues of principle on the award of damages, including exemplary damages.
    Held: Throughout the period, the defendant had held the property in trust for the claimant, and profits fell to be awarded for trespass, denial of title, an account of profits exemplary damages. The court decided to award: ‘mesne profits, representing the actual loss to the Claimant, on the basis of applying an annual percentage of 4.5% to the agreed capital value of the expropriated property’.

    Judges:

    Geraldine Andrews QC J

    Citations:

    [2010] EWHC 2453 (Ch), [2011] 2 All ER 38

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Citing:

    Transferred from – Ramzan v Agra Ltd; Ramzan v Brookwide Limited Misc 4-Apr-2008
    (Birmingham County Court) The parties disputed ownership of a room between their adjoining properties, which incuded a flying freehold. The defendant was said to have broken through into the room, and then blocked off the previous door into the . .
    Cited – Rookes 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 . .
    Cited – Horsford v Bird and others PC 17-Jan-2006
    (Antigua and Barbuda) The Board was asked as to the damages to be awarded after the defendant had built a wall which encroached on the claimant’s land and appropriated some 455 square feet. Aggravated damages had been awarded. The court was asked . .
    Cited – Parabola Investments Ltd and Others v Browallia Cal Ltd and Others CA 5-May-2010
    The second defendant appealed against the level of damages awarded against him after he was found guilty of a fraud on the claimant, saying that the loss of profits element was unproven.
    Held: The appeal failed. Where a claimant’s investment . .
    Cited – Swordheath Properties Ltd v Tabet CA 1979
    The amount of damages payable by a trespasser on land is ordinarily the letting value of the premises. Megaw LJ said: ‘It appears to me to be clear, both as a matter of principle and of authority, that in a case of this sort the plaintiff, when he . .
    Cited – Stadium Capital Holdings (No 2) Ltd v St Marylebone Property Company Plc Clear Channel UK Ltd CA 15-Jul-2010
    The court considered a trespass to the claimant’s airspace by the erection of a commercial advertising hoarding without permission. It had generated significant revenue for the trespasser. The trial judge had refused a very late application by the . .
    Cited – Ministry of Defence v Ashman and Another CA 3-May-1993
    A person who has profited from trespassing on someone else’s land may be ordered to pay what are sometimes called ‘restitutionary damages’ to the landowner. Mesne profits can be calculated as the cost of alternative Local Authority Housing. Kennedy . .
    Cited – Blomley v Ryan 28-Mar-1956
    (High Court of Australia) Equity – Contract for sale and purchase of grazing property – Suit for specific performance brought by purchaser – Vendor aged and affected by long bout of rum drinking – Claim to set aside contract – Unconscionable bargain . .
    Cited – Multiservice Bookbinding Ltd v Marden ChD 1978
    To have a transaction set aside as a harsh and unconscionable bargain, a party would have to show not only that the terms of the transaction were harsh or oppressive, but also moral unfairness. Browne-Wilkinson J said: ‘In my judgment a bargain . .
    Cited – Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd v Total Oil Ltd QBD 1983
    To establish that a contract was unconscionable, a party had to have made an unconscientious use of its superior position or superior bargaining power to the detriment of someone suffering from some special disability or disadvantage. This weakness . .
    Cited – Design Progression Limited v Thurloe Properties Limited ChD 25-Feb-2004
    The tenant applied for a licence to assign. The landlord failed to reply, anticipating that delay would allow it to generate a better lease renewal.
    Held: The delay was unreasonable and a breach of the landlord’s statutory duty, and was an act . .

    Cited by:

    At first instance – Ramzan v Brookwide Ltd (Ancillary Matters) CA 19-Aug-2011
    Costs award after principal judgment . .
    Appeal from – Ramzan v Brookwide Ltd CA 19-Aug-2011
    The defendant had broken through into a neighbour’s flying freehold room, closed it off, and then included it in its own premises for let. It now appealed against the quantum of damages awarded. The judge had found the actions deliberate and with a . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Damages, Land

    Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.425257

    Cutler v Wandsworth Stadium Ltd: HL 1949

    The Act required the occupier of a licensed racetrack to take all steps necessary to secure that, so long as a totalisator was being lawfully operated on the track, there was available for bookmakers space on the track where they could conveniently carry on bookmaking in connection with dog races run on the track on that day. Breach of this provision carried a criminal sanction. A bookmaker who contended that he had not been provided with suitable space brought a claim for an injunction and damages against the operator of the track. His claim succeeded in the High Court but not in the Court of Appeal.
    Held: The bookmaker’s appeal failed. There is a general rule of law that where a new statutory obligation is created which at the same time provides a special means of enforcing it, that performance cannot be enforced in any other manner. A law which was not intended to create legal rights and duties would be a mere ‘pious aspiration’. On a proper construction of the particular statute, there was no parliamentary intention to confer private rights of action on bookmakers at a racetrack: the intended enforcement of rights was by means of criminal prosecution.
    Lord Simonds said: ‘I do not propose to try to formulate any rules by reference to which such a question can infallibly be answered. The only rule which in all circumstances is valid is that the answer must depend upon a consideration of the whole Act and the circumstances, including the pre-existing law in which it was enacted. But that there are indications which point with more or less force to the one answer or the other is clear from authorities which, even where they do not bind, will have great weight with the House. For instance, if a statutory duty is prescribed but no remedy by way of penalty or otherwise for its breach is imposed, it can be assumed that a right of civil action accrues to the person who is damnified by the breach. For if it were not so, the statute would be but a pious aspiration.’ and ‘As I have mentioned, sub-contractors experiencing undue delay would be able to enforce performance of the Revenue’s duty by an application for judicial review. The absence of a financial remedy for past losses does not deprive the statutory duty of substance.’
    Lord Reid said: ‘I find it extremely difficult to reconcile the nature of the provisions of this sub-section with an intention to confer on individual bookmakers rights which each could enforce by civil action. If the legislature had intended to create such rights I would expect to find them capable of reasonably precise definition.’
    As to a plea that Parliament should reveal its intention in plain words, Lord Du Parcq said: ‘Parliament must be taken to have known that if it preferred to avoid the crudity of a blunt statement and to leave its intention in that regard to be inferred by the courts, the ‘general rule’ would prevail unless the ‘scope and language’ of the Act established the exception. It cannot be supposed that the draftsman is blind to the principles which the courts have laid down for their own guidance when it becomes necessary for them to fill in such gaps as Parliament may choose to leave in its enactments.’

    Judges:

    Lord Simonds, Lord Reid, Lord Du Parcq

    Citations:

    [1949] AC 398

    Statutes:

    Betting and Lotteries Act 1934 11(2)(b)

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Citing:

    Dictum Approved – Butler (or Black) v Fife Coal Co, Ltd HL 19-Dec-1911
    The court considered whether a civil remedy existed for breach of statutory duty. Lord Kinnear said: ‘If the duty be established, I do not think there is any serious question as to civil liability. There is no reasonable ground for maintaining that . .
    Appeal from – Cutler v Wandsworth Stadium Ltd CA 1945
    Morton LJ criticised an application to vary an undertaking given to it: ‘ . . the court does not vary an undertaking given by a litigant. If the litigant has given an undertaking and desires to be released from that undertaking, the application . .

    Cited by:

    Cited – Issa (Suing By her Next Friend and Father Issa) and Issa (Suing By her Next Friend and Father Issa) v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Hackney CA 19-Nov-1996
    A Local Authority found guilty of a statutory nuisance is not thereby liable for a civil damages suit. . .
    Cited – Consorzio Del Prosciutto Di Parma v Asda Stores Limited and others HL 8-Feb-2001
    The name ‘Parma Ham’ was controlled as to its use under Italian law, and the associated mark, the ‘corona ducale’, was to be applied to a sale of Parma Ham, including any packaging. Proper Parma Ham was imported and resold through the defendant’s . .
    Cited – Total Network Sl v Revenue and Customs HL 12-Mar-2008
    The House was asked whether an action for unlawful means conspiracy was available against a participant in a missing trader intra-community, or carousel, fraud. The company appealed a finding of liability saying that the VAT Act and Regulations . .
    Cited – Regina v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, Ex parte Hague, Weldon v Home Office HL 24-Jul-1991
    The prisoner challenged the decision to place him in segregation under Prison Rule 43. Under rule 43(1) the initial power to segregate was given to ‘the governor’. The case arose from the fact that the governor of one prison had purported to . .
    Cited – Connor v Surrey County Council CA 18-Mar-2010
    The claimant teacher said that she suffered personal injury from stress after the board of governors improperly failed to protect her from from false complaints. The Council now appealed against an award of substantial damages.
    Held: The . .
    Cited – Poulton v Ministry of Justice CA 22-Apr-2010
    The claimant was trustee in bankruptcy but the court failed to register the bankruptcy petition at the Land Registry as a pending action. The bankrupt was therefore able to sell her land, and the trustee did not recover the proceeds. The trustee . .
    Cited – Campbell v Gordon SC 6-Jul-2016
    The employee was injured at work, but in a way excluded from the employers insurance cover. He now sought to make the sole company director liable, hoping in term to take action against the director’s insurance brokers for negligence, the director . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Damages, Litigation Practice

    Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.221530

    Perlman v Rayden, Rayden: ChD 7 Oct 2004

    The parties had become embroiled in a particularly bitter boundary dispute. The claimants in particular sought aggravated damages saying that the defendants had misled them in securing agreement to works.
    Held: Aggravated damages were awarded. The defendant had continued to deny any wrongdoing when he knew full well that his building was a trespass. Patten J said: ‘I have rejected the allegation that the Raydens sought from the start to mislead the Perlmans and that they always intended to carry out their works regardless of the Perlmans’ rights . . I do, however, accept that the Raydens did decide to press ahead with the extension regardless of the terms of the planning permission. What is in dispute is whether and to what extent they were also aware that their extension would impinge on the Claimant’s property and his rights of access in the way that it did. It is, I think, important to bear in mind that Mr. Perlman is not entitled to damages for a breach by the Raydens of planning control. His cause of action is one in nuisance or trespass. There is no clear evidence that the Raydens knew in advance how their builders intended to construct the extension, any more than they planned the delivery of the dormer window via the roadway. But these were the Raydens’ builders and they must, in my judgment, take responsibility for their actions. It also seems to me unlikely that Mr. Rayden was not told by Mr. Izod or the builders at least something about the attempts that were being made to deal with the level of the flank wall. Neither Mr. Nixon nor anyone from the builders has been called to explain why they acted in the way they did. What is, I think, particularly important and significant is that when the queries were raised about the construction of the flank wall, Mr. Rayden continued to deny any wrongdoing, even at a time when he must have known what the true position was and indeed was prepared to admit it to the planning authority. This is a case where I can, I think, properly make an award of aggravated damages, but in doing so I am entitled to take into account the fact that the extension has now been demolished, at considerable cost to the Raydens, and my declaration about the gap to be left ought to prevent problems of this kind occurring in the future . .’

    Judges:

    The Honourable Mr Justice Patten

    Citations:

    [2004] EWHC 2192 (Ch)

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Cited by:

    Cited – Lawrence and Another v Fen Tigers Ltd and Others QBD 4-Mar-2011
    The claimants had complained that motor-cycle and other racing activities on neighbouring lands were a noise nuisance, but the court also considered that agents of the defendants had sought to intimidate the claimants into not pursuing their action. . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Land, Damages

    Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.216003

    Thompson v Smith Repairers: 1984

    The court should not become involved in an assessment of damages so vague that it is shot through with imprecision.

    Citations:

    [1984] QB 405

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Cited by:

    Cited – Christopher Evans v SMG Television Limited etc ChD 26-Jun-2003
    The claimant had a series of agreements with the respondents. He had worked as radio presenter, having sold the radio station to the respondents. He was later dismissed and now sought damages for wrongful dismissal and breach of a partnership . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Damages

    Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.183823

    Primavera v Allied Dunbar Assurance Plc: CA 4 Oct 2002

    The claimant purchased a pension plan relying upon advice from the defendant. Since discovering the error, the plan had in fact prospered. The respondent appealed the judges failure to allow fully for the improvement when assessing damages.
    Held: Part of the claim required both to assess the loss as at 1995, and to recover later loses. It was double recovery. As to the rest the damages which might be assessed in 1995 would have disappeared by 2000. The claimant had not liquidated the fund in 1995. He had however still been misled by the defendant, and had acted as if the loss had been incurred. The damages stood to be assessed as at 1995.

    Judges:

    Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Mance And Lord Justice Latham

    Citations:

    [2002] EWCA Civ 1327

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Citing:

    Cited – British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co v Underground Electric Railways Co (London) Limited HL 1912
    The plaintiffs purchased eight steam turbines from the defendants. They later proved defective, and the plaintiffs sought damages. In the meantime they purchased replacements, more effective than the original specifications. In the result the . .
    Cited – Needler Financial Services Ltd v Taber ChD 31-Jul-2001
    The claimant had been negligently advised to swap to a personal pension plan. He was to receive damages in respect of that loss, but, in the meantime, the pension company, of which he had become a member de-mutualised, and he became entitled to . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Financial Services, Damages, Professional Negligence

    Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.177331

    John Grimes Partnership Ltd v Gubbins: CA 5 Feb 2013

    Issue of some importance about the law on the remoteness of damage in cases of breach of contract. Can a developer of land, whose development scheme is delayed in its implementation by the failure of a consulting engineer to perform tasks which he has contracted to perform by an agreed date, recover damages for the loss he suffers thereby from a diminution in the market value of the development which occurs during the period for which its completion is delayed?

    Citations:

    [2013] EWCA Civ 37

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Contract, Damages

    Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.470735

    Guntrip, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another: Admn 9 Dec 2010

    The claimant prisoner should have had his detention reviewed after serving the tariff part of his sentence. He sought damages for the delay. The first hearing before the Board, following the expiry of the tariff, had not taken place until about two years after the latest date by which it ought to have been held.
    Held: The court awarded andpound;1200 by way of damages.

    Judges:

    Ouseley J

    Citations:

    [2010] EWHC 3188 (Admin)

    Links:

    Bailii

    Cited by:

    Applied – Sturnham, Regina (on The Application of) v Parole Board, Secretary of State for Justice Admn 14-Mar-2011
    S was serving a term of life imprisonment. After serving the tariff, his detention should have been reviewed. After several serious delays, and a decision that he should instead be transferred to open conditions, he brought proceedings for judicial . .
    Cited – Faulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another SC 1-May-2013
    The applicants had each been given a life sentence, but having served the minimum term had been due to have the continued detention reviewed to establish whether or not continued detention was necessary for the protection of the pblic. It had not . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Prisons, Damages

    Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427949

    Arhin v Enfield Primary Care Trust: CA 20 Dec 2010

    The claimant doctor appealed against the refusal of compensatory damages awarded on a finding that she had been unfairly selected for redundancy.

    Judges:

    Maurice Kay VP CA, Smith, Leveson LLJ

    Citations:

    [2010] EWCA Civ 1481

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Citing:

    Cited – Meek v City of Birmingham District Council CA 18-Feb-1987
    Employment Tribunals to Provide Sufficient Reasons
    Tribunals, when giving their decisions, are required to do no more than to make clear their findings of fact and to answer any question of law raised.
    Bingham LJ said: ‘It has on a number of occasions been made plain that the decision of an . .
    Appeal from – Arhin v Enfield Primary Care Trust EAT 26-Jan-2010
    EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Appellate Jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke
    REDUNDANCY
    UNFAIR DISMISSAL
    RACE DISCRIMINATION
    The employer was found not to have acted by reason of race when . .
    Cited – Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd and Another v Wilcox and others CA 20-Jul-2006
    Rule 30(6) of the 2004 Rules, which requires sufficient reasons, is intended to be a guide and not a straitjacket so that if it can be reasonably spelled out from a determination that what the rule requires has been provided by the Tribunal, then no . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Employment, Damages

    Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427363

    JM v Fife Council: SCS 18 Jan 2007

    ‘The pursuer seeks damages from the defenders in respect of sexual and non-sexual abuse which he suffered while a child in residential accommodation in a children’s home in Elie, Fife (‘the home ‘) operated by the defenders’ statutory predecessors.’

    Citations:

    [2007] ScotCS CSOH – 7

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    Scotland

    Torts – Other, Damages

    Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.279630

    Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v Ramanoop: PC 23 Mar 2005

    (Trinidad and Tobago) A police officer had unjustifiably roughed up, arrested, taken to the police station and locked up Mr Ramanoop, who now sought constitutional redress, including exemplary damages. He did not claim damages for the nominate torts that had certainly been committed. Counsel for the Attorney General submitted that constitutional redress, in so far as it took the form of an award of damages, should be confined to compensatory damages.
    Held: The Board upheld the award of vindicatory damages in respect of the officers serious misbehaviour, though these were not exemplary damages or awarded for any punitive purpose.
    Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead said: ‘Their Lordships view the matter as follows. Section 14 recognises and affirms the court’s power to award remedies for contravention of chapter I rights and freedoms. This jurisdiction is an integral part of the protection chapter I of the Constitution confers on the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. It is an essential element in the protection intended to be afforded by the Constitution against misuse of state power. Section 14 presupposes that, by exercise of this jurisdiction, the court will be able to afford the wronged citizen effective relief in respect of the state’s violation of a constitutional right. This jurisdiction is separate from and additional to (‘without prejudice to’) all other remedial jurisdiction of the court.
    . . When exercising this constitutional jurisdiction the court is concerned to uphold, or vindicate, the constitutional right which has been contravened. A declaration by the court will articulate the fact of the violation, but in most cases more will be required than words. If the person wronged has suffered damage, the court may award him compensation. The comparable common law measure of damages will often be a useful guide in assessing the amount of compensation. But this measure is no more than a guide because the award of compensation under section 14 is discretionary and moreover, the violation of the constitutional right will not always be coterminous with the cause of action at law.
    An award of compensation will go some distance towards vindicating the infringed constitutional right. How far it goes will depend on the circumstances, but in principle it may well not suffice. The fact that the right violated was a constitutional right adds an extra dimension to the wrong. An additional award, not necessarily of substantial size, may be needed to reflect the sense of public outrage, emphasise the importance of the constitutional right and the gravity of the breach, and deter further breaches. All these elements have a place in this additional award. ‘Redress’ in section 14 is apt to encompass such an award if the court considers it is required having regard to all the circumstances. Although such an award, where called for, is likely in most cases to cover much the same ground in financial terms as would an award by way of punishment in the strict sense of retribution, punishment in the latter sense is not its object. Accordingly, the expressions ‘punitive damages’ or ‘exemplary damages’ are better avoided as descriptions of this type of additional award . . For these reasons their Lordships are unable to accept the Attorney General’s basic submission that a monetary award under section 14 is confined to an award of compensatory damages in the traditional sense. Bereaux J stated his jurisdiction too narrowly. The matter should be remitted to him, or another judge, to consider whether an additional award of damages of the character described above is appropriate in this case. Their Lordships dismiss this appeal with costs.’

    Judges:

    Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead

    Citations:

    [2005] UKPC 15, [2005] 2 WLR 1324, [2006] 1 AC 328

    Links:

    Bailii, PC

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Citing:

    Cited – Harrikissoon v Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago PC 1980
    (Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant teacher alleged that he had been transferred from one school to another without proper notice and as punishment. The appellant instead of following a laid out procedure which would have eventually led to a . .

    Cited by:

    Cited – Merson v Cartwright, The Attorney General PC 13-Oct-2005
    (Bahamas) The defendant police had appealed the quantum of damages awarded to the claimant for assault and battery and false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, saying that she had been doubly compensated. The claimant now appealed reduction of . .
    Cited – Ashley and Another v Chief Constable of Sussex Police HL 23-Apr-2008
    The claimants sought to bring an action for damages after a family member suspected of dealing drugs, was shot by the police. At the time he was naked. The police officer had been acquitted by a criminal court of murder. The chief constable now . .
    Cited – Subiah v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago PC 3-Nov-2008
    (Trinidad and Tobago) The Board considered the extent of damages for infringement of the claimant’s constitutional rights. He had been on board a bus. He complained when a policeman was allowed not to buy a ticket. The same constable arrested him as . .
    Cited – Takitota v the Attorney General and others PC 18-Mar-2009
    (Bahamas) The applicant a tourist had been wrongfully detained in appalling conditions in the Bahamas for over eight years after he lost his documents. He now appealed against an award of $500,000 dollars compensation.
    Held: ‘it would not be . .
    Cited – Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
    The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
    Cited – Takitota v The Attorney General and Others PC 18-Mar-2009
    Bahamas – The claimant appeald as to the amount of compensation awarded to him for his unlawful detention for over eight years, in appalling prison conditions. The Court of Appeal categorised his treatment not only as ‘less than humane’ but as a . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Damages, Police, Constitutional

    Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.223876

    Lawrence and Another v Fen Tigers Ltd and Others: QBD 18 Oct 2010

    Application to strike out passages from witness statements.

    Judges:

    Edwards-Stuart J

    Citations:

    [2010] EWHC 2449 (QB)

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Cited by:

    See Also – Lawrence and Another v Fen Tigers Ltd and Others QBD 18-Oct-2010
    The court made orders to assist the future management of the case. . .
    See Also – Lawrence and Another v Fen Tigers Ltd and Others QBD 4-Mar-2011
    The claimants had complained that motor-cycle and other racing activities on neighbouring lands were a noise nuisance, but the court also considered that agents of the defendants had sought to intimidate the claimants into not pursuing their action. . .
    See Also – Lawrence and Another v Fen Tigers Ltd and Others CA 2012
    Jackson LJ set out the way in which planning consents would affect whether actions amounted to a nuisance: ‘I would summarise the law which is relevant to the first ground of appeal in four propositions. (i) A planning authority by the grant of . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Litigation Practice

    Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425661

    Abbey Investments Ltd v London Development Agency: UTLC 16 Sep 2010

    UTLC COMPENSATION – compulsory purchase – site of former plant hire depot – planning permission – whether planning permission to be assumed on the basis that land allocated in the Development Plan – whether any other expectation of planning consent as hope value – development costs – valuation – compensation determined at andpound;1,903,689 – Land Compensation Act 1961ss. 14(3) and 16(3)

    Citations:

    [2010] UKUT 325 (LC)

    Links:

    Bailii

    Statutes:

    Land Compensation Act 1961 14(3) 16(3)

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Land, Damages

    Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425236

    Metropolitan International Schools Ltd (T/A Skillstrain And/Or Train2Game) v Designtechnica Corporation (T/A Digital Trends) and Others: QBD 1 Oct 2010

    The court set at andpound;50,000 the damages after a finding of defamation of the claimant training company for materials published by the defendant thorugh their web-site. An internet search engine was not liable in defamation because the mental element traditionally involved in responsibility for publication at common law was absent.

    Judges:

    Tugendhat J

    Citations:

    [2009] EMLR 27, [2010] EWHC 2411 (QB)

    Links:

    Bailii

    Jurisdiction:

    England and Wales

    Citing:

    See Also – Metropolitan International Schools Ltd. (T/A Skillstrain And/Or Train2Game) v Designtechnica Corp (T/A Digital Trends) and Others QBD 16-Jul-2009
    The claimant complained that the defendant had published on its internet forums comments by posters which were defamatory of it, and which were then made available by the second defendant search engine. The court was asked what responsibility a . .

    Cited by:

    Cited – Tamiz v Google Inc Google UK Ltd QBD 2-Mar-2012
    The claimant sought damages in defamation against the defendant company offering internet search facilities. The words complained of had been published in a blog, and in comments published on the blog.
    Held: Jurisdiction should be declined. . .
    Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

    Defamation, Damages

    Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.424889