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 mind upon, without real physical inconvenience resulting, you cannot recover damages. That is purely sentimental, and not a case where the word inconvenience, as I here use it, would apply.’ However the court upheld an award to a husband and wife for the inconvenience of having to walk home with young children four or five miles late on a drizzling night, although the wife’s catching of a cold was found too remote.
Mellor J, Cockburn CJ, Blackburn J
(1875) LR 10 QB 111
England and Wales
Cited by:
Not FollowedJarvis v Swans Tours Ltd CA 16-Oct-1972
jarvis_swanCA1972
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, . .
CitedWiseman 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, . .
AppliedBailey v Bullock 1950
The court awarded damages against solicitors for the inconvenience to the plaintiff of having to live in an overcrowded house. . .
CitedJohnson v Gore Wood and Co HL 14-Dec-2000
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 May 2021; Ref: scu.181259