Hyde v Cogan And Others: 22 Jun 1781

After the anti-Catholic ‘Gordon Riots’ in London in June 1780, which caused extensive damage and destruction of property, including Lord Mansfield’s house in Bloomsbury Square, damages were claied from the local hundred. The hundred argued that the 1714 Act was penal against both the trespasser and the hundred and ought to be interpreted narrowly.
Held: (Lord Mansfield present but not taking part) It was not penal, but remedial, and was to be interpreted liberally.
Buller J said that, as a result, it should be interpreted liberally.
Willes J, said that the furniture in a London house might be worth twice as much as the house itself, and that a liberal interpretation brought household goods within the scope of the statutory compensation scheme.


Willes, Ashhurst and Buller JJ


[1781] EngR 69, (1781) 2 Doug 699, (1781) 99 ER 445




England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedThe Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd and Others SC 20-Apr-2016
The Court considered the quantification of damages to be awarded to a business suffering under riots under the 1886 Act, and in particular whether such recoverable losses included compensation for consequential losses, including loss of profits and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Damages

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.372535