Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Damages - From: 1995 To: 1995

This page lists 47 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.

 
Porter v Secretary of State for Transport [1995] 2 EGLR 175
1995
LT
Judge Marder QC
Land, Damages, Estoppel
A positive section 17 (or section 18) certificate has been issued on the basis that the relevant land would be developed, or could only be developed, in conjunction with other land in the vicinity. It was argued that no assumption arose as a matter of law that planning permission would be granted for such development of the other land. Held. In such circumstances an issue estoppel arose so as to preclude the acquiring authority from reopening the issues of fact on the basis of which a section 18 certificate had been granted.
1 Citers


 
Lojinska Plovidba v Transco Overseas Ltd (The Orjula) [1995] 2 Lloyds Rep 395
1995

Mance J
Damages
A layer of hydrochloric acid had leaked on to the deck of a ship. The port authorities required the vessel to be decontaminated of the acid before she could sail. The defendants applied to have the claim struck out. Held. Mance J considered criminal case law to see whether there had been any physical damage: "the criminal test is one of fact and degree . . Relevant considerations are whether there has been 'injury impairing value and usefulness' of the property in question, and the need for work and the expenditure of money to restore the property to its former usable condition is material".
1 Citers


 
Inverugie Investments Ltd v Hackett [1995] 1 WLR 713
1995
PC
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
Damages
The plaintiff was the lessee of 30 apartments within a hotel complex. The defendants ejected the plaintiff and for some years used the apartments as part of the hotel with an average occupancy rate of not more than 40%. Held: The defendants were liable for damages in trespass for the use of each apartment at the going rate for 365 days for each year of trespass notwithstanding that they had been unable to derive an income from the property for the entire time due to low occupancy rates. Lord Lloyd of Berwick said: "It is sometimes said that these cases are an exception to the rule that damages in tort are compensatory. But this is not necessarily so. It depends how widely one defines the "loss" which the plaintiff has suffered."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
George Fischer (Great Britain) Ltd v Multi Construction Ltd., Dexion Ltd. (third party) [1998] 61 ConLR 85; [1995] 1 BCLC 260
1995

Judge Hicks QC
Professional Negligence, Damages
The plaintiff contracted with the defendant for the defendant to install equipment on the premises of one of the claimant's subsidiaries. The equipment was to be used by the subsidiary. The equipment was defective and damage was suffered by the subsidiary in consequence. The claimant sought to recover in a breach of contract action the loss caused to its subsidiary. Held: The claim was allowed. The Prudential Assurance case did not bar the action.
Judge Hicks QC said: "Each scheme was criticised by the proponents of the other. Neither had been designed in full detail, so acceptance of either is, to some extent, dependent, first, on a judgment as to the ability of the designer, with the assistance of the specialist knowledge of the relevant manufacturer and a contractor experienced in using the system, to devise suitable detailed treatment of all the potential trouble-spots and, second, on an assessment of the guarantees and bonds offered by the manufacturer and contractor. Since Soladex would be so much the cheaper, and cannot be said to be the more detrimental to the appearance of the buildings - I should have thought, if anything, the reverse - it must clearly be preferred unless the criticisms of its expected effectiveness are, taking the above considerations into account, made good on the balance of probabilities."
1 Citers


 
Director of Buildings and Land v Shun Fung Ironworks Limited [1995] 2 AC 111
1995
PC
Lord Nicholls
Damages, Land
The House considered a claim for compensation in the form of loss of profits. Held. The loss of profits in the shadow period, being the period after the possibility that the claimant's site might be resumed became known and which had a paralyzing effect on its operations, were awarded.
Lord Nicholls held that such losses might be recovered if they satisfy three conditions, namely, that the losses were causally connected with the resumption; that they were not too remote; and that they were not losses which a reasonable person would have avoided.
Lord Nicholls said: "The purpose of these provisions, in Hong Kong and England, is to provide fair compensation for a claimant whose land has been compulsorily taken from him. This is sometimes described as the principle of equivalence. No allowance is to be made because the resumption or acquisition was compulsory; and land is to be valued at the price it might be expected to realise if sold by a willing seller, not an unwilling seller. But subject to these qualifications, a claimant is entitled to be compensated fairly and fully for his loss. Conversely, and built into the concept of fair compensation, is the corollary that a claimant is not entitled to receive more than fair compensation: a person is entitled to compensation for losses fairly attributable to the taking of his land, but not to any greater amount. It is ultimately by this touchstone, with its two facets, that all claims for compensation succeed or fail."


 
 Longden v British Coal Corporation; CA 1995 - [1995] ICR 957
 
Ezekiel v McDade [1995] 47 EG 150
1995
CA

Damages, Construction
As a result of the negligence of their builders, the plaintiffs were rendered homeless persons living in single room council accommodation for a long period. The builder appealed an award of £6,000. Held: The award should be reduced to £4,000 for general damages for physical inconvenience and discomfort caused by the defendants’ negligence and for mental suffering directly related to it.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons and Simmons [1995] 1 WLR 1602; [1995] 4 All ER 907; [1995] EWCA Civ 17; [1995] NPC 83; 46 Con LR 134; [1996] CLC 153; (1995) 70 P & CR D14; [1955-95] PNLR 701
1995
CA
Stuart-Smith LJ, Hobhouse LJ
Damages, Professional Negligence
Solicitors failed to advise the plaintiffs sufficiently in a property transaction. A warranty against liability for a former tenant’s obligations under leases had not been obtained. The trial judge held that, on a balance of probabilities, there was a real and not a merely speculative chance that the plaintiffs, had they been properly advised, would have successfully re-negotiated with the vendor to obtain proper protection. Held: The judgment was upheld. To avoid an action for damages against solicitors being struck out, the plaintiff must satisfy the court that he had at least a "real" or "substantial" chance that he would have succeeded in the primary action, not merely a speculative chance. The court rejected the proposition that in order to succeed the plaintiff was required to prove on a balance of probabilities that the third party (there another party to a commercial transaction) would have acted so as to confer the relative benefit on the plaintiff. A plaintiff must prove that he has (or had) a real or substantial chance (as opposed to a speculative chance) of that occurring, that chance then being evaluated having regard to how it stands in the spectrum between something that just qualifies as real or substantial on the one hand and near certainty on the other. If a chance having been found to be real or substantial was evaluated at less than 50%, an award of damages would follow. “In many cases the plaintiff’s loss depends on the hypothetical action of a third party, either in addition to action by the plaintiff, as in this case, or independently of it. In such a case, does the plaintiff have to prove on balance of probability, ... that the third party would have acted so as to confer the benefit or avoid the risk to the plaintiff, or can the plaintiff succeed provided he shows that he had a substantial chance rather than a speculative one, the evaluation of the substantial chance being a question of quantification of damages? . . . I have no doubt that ... the second alternative is correct.”
Stuart Smith LJ said: "the plaintiff must prove as a matter of causation that he has a real or substantial chance as opposed to a speculative one. If he succeeds in doing so, the evaluation of the chance is part of the assessment of the quantum of damage, the range lying somewhere between something that just qualifies as real or substantial on the one hand and near certainty on the other. I do not think that it is helpful to seek to lay down in percentage terms what the lower and upper ends of the bracket s
Hobhouse LJ said: "The plaintiffs have satisfied the court that the loss they have suffered is not nominal. They are not obliged to prove more than that they have lost something of substance. This they have done by showing that they had a measurable chance of negotiating significantly better terms. They are entitled to an assessment of their damages.
I agree with Stuart-Smith L.J. that the correct approach is that summarised by Lord Reid in Davies v. Taylor [1974] A.C. 207"
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
GMTC Tools and Equipment Ltd v Yuasa Warwick Machinery Ltd Times, 03 January 1995
3 Jan 1995
CA

Damages
A plaintiff must be allowed to frame his damages claim in the way he chooses. A format is not to be imposed by the judge.

 
Deeny and Others v Gooda Walker Ltd and Others Ind Summary, 27 February 1995; Times, 26 January 1995
26 Jan 1995
QBD

Income Tax, Damages
Damages awards received by Lloyds' names for their managing agents' negligence were taxable as trading income, since they were revenue receipts.

 
Gerber Garment Technology Inc v Lectra Systems Ltd Ind Summary, 30 January 1995; [1995] RPC 383
30 Jan 1995
ChD
Jacob J
Intellectual Property, Damages
A prior art recital in a Patent application is strong but rebuttable evidence of the state of knowledge.
1 Citers



 
 Crimpfil Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc; CA 16-Feb-1995 - Times, 24 February 1995; Ind Summary, 27 March 1995; [1995] CLC 385
 
Director of Buildings and Lands v Shun Fung Ironworks Ltd Times, 27 February 1995; [1995] 2 AC 111
20 Feb 1995
PC
Lord Nicholls, Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Mustill, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Lloyd of Berwick
Land, Commonwealth, Damages
Compensation is payable for losses properly anticipating resumption of possession of the land. The principle of equivalence gives rise to the statutory right to interest under section 11(1). The council explained the conceptual foundation of the discounted cash flow basis of calculation: "In this calculation the discount rate, or capitalisation rate, comprises the rate at which an amount of money payable at a future date should be reduced to arrive at its present value. Its present value is the price which a person would pay now for the right or prospect of receiving the amount of money in question at the future date. Three ingredients can be identified in the discount rate. One is the rate of return the potential purchaser would expect on his money, assuming that the payment to him at the future date is free of risk. A second ingredient is the allowance the potential purchaser would make because of the likely impact of inflation. He is buying today, in today's currency, the right to be paid at a future date an amount which, when paid, will be paid in tomorrow's depreciated currency. The third ingredient is the risk factor. The greater the risk that the purchaser will not receive in due course the future payments he is buying, the higher the rate of return he will require."
Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 11(1)
1 Citers

[ PC ]

 
 Cumber v Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary; CA 22-Feb-1995 - Gazette, 22 February 1995
 
Banque Bruxelles Lambert Sa v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd and Others Appealsz Times, 24 February 1995; Gazette, 22 March 1995; Times, 21 February 1995; [1995] QB 375; [1995] 2 All ER 769
24 Feb 1995
CA
Sir Thomas Bingham MR
Damages, Professional Negligence
The plaintiffs were mortgagees. The defendants were valuers. The defendants negligently over-valued properties and the plaintiffs then accepted mortgages of the properties. Later the property market collapsed and the various borrowers defaulted and on sale the plaintiffs obtained substantially less than the sums they had advanced. The relevant question was whether the plaintiffs could include in their damages the difference in the value of the properties between the time of entering into the mortgages and the sale of the properties. Held: Damages payable to a secured lender for a negligent valuation included losses attributable to general market. Discussing liability where two causes contributed to the damages: "the event which the plaintiff alleges to be causative need not be the only or even the main cause of the result complained of: it is enough if it is an effective cause"
Sir Thomas Bingham MR described the valuer's task: "In the absence of special instructions, it is no part of V's duty to advise L on future movements in property prices, whether nationally or locally. The belief among buyers and sellers that prices are likely to move upwards or downwards may have an effect on current prices, and to that extent such belief may be reflected by V in his valuation. But his concern is with current value only. He is not asked to predict what will happen in the future. His valuation is not sought to protect L against future decline in property prices. In no sense is he a guarantor of L's investment decision."
He spoke also as to the measurement of damages: "where a mortgage lender would not, but for the negligent valuation, have entered into the transaction with the borrower he could recover the net loss he had sustained as a result of having done so; that a fall in the market was foreseeable, and since, in such a case, the lender would not have entered into the transaction but for the valuer's negligence and could not escape from it unless and until the borrower defaulted, that negligence was the effective cause of his loss, and a fall in the market was not to be treated as a new intervening cause breaking the link between the valuer's negligence and the damage sustained; accordingly on the assumed facts the mortgagees were entitled to recover damages in respect of the loss they had sustained which was attributable to market fall."
. . And: "In a no-transaction purchase case, it seems clear on English authority that effect will be given to the resti­tutionary principle by awarding the buyer all that he has paid out less what (acting reasonably to cut his losses including selling the property) he has recovered. In no case before [the present case] has any head of foreseeable damage been excluded from the calculation."
. . And: "In no-transaction mortgage lending cases it has been the practice since Baxter v Gapp [1939] 2 AER 752 to award the lender the net loss sustained as a result of entering into the transaction, which may be expressed as the difference between what the lender advanced and what the lender would have advanced if properly advised (which is always nil). Thus related expenses of sale and realisation less sums recovered. ... Should a rise in the market have contributed to [a full recovery] then, as in the successful transaction case, that contribution will not be ignored so as to treat the lender as sustaining a financial loss which in fact he has not sustained. If in such a case a fall in the property market between the date of the transaction and the date of realisation contributes to the lender's overall loss sustained as a result of entering into the transaction, it would seem to us, on a straight forward application of the restitutionary principle, that the lender should be entitled to recover that element of his loss against the negligent party."
. . And :"Where a buyer is claiming damages for negligence in a successful transaction case the diminution in value rule ordinarily provides an adequate measure of the buyers loss. As the cases show, to award, for example, the full cost of repairs will usually lead to over-compensation. This assessment will ordinarily be made as at the date of breach, for there is no other appropriate date. The same rule will usually be applied where the buyer decides to keep the property with knowledge of its defective condition or over-valuation even if, with that knowledge, he would not have bought in the first place. In such a case no account is taken of later fluctuations in the market, for he remains the owner of the property as a result of his own independent decision and not of the negligence of the valuer or surveyor."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Longdon v British Coal Corporation Times, 14 April 1995; Gazette, 12 April 1995
9 Mar 1995
CA

Employment, Personal Injury, Damages, Benefits
A pension paid on incapacity as an alternative to retirement was not deductible from damages payable later for negligence. There was no double recovery.


 
 Malik and Another v Bank of Credit and Commerce International Sa; CA 17-Mar-1995 - Times, 12 April 1995; Independent, 17 March 1995

 
 Island Records Ltd v Tring International Plc and Another; ChD 12-Apr-1995 - Times, 28 April 1995; [1995] EWHC 8 (Ch); [1995] FSR 560; [1995] 3 All ER 444
 
Robertson v Forth Bridge Joint Board (Scotland) Times, 13 April 1995
13 Apr 1995
IHCS

Damages
No duty as regards nervous shock to employee seeing co-worker die.


 
 Abnett v British Airways Plc (Scotland); IHCS 28-Apr-1995 - Times, 22 June 1995; 1996 SLT 529
 
Gamerco Sa v Icm/Fair Warning (Agency) Ltd and Another Times, 03 May 1995
3 May 1995
QBD

Damages
The court has a broad discretion to set off expenses against the repayment of an advance.
Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 1-2

 
Knutt and Another v Bolton and Others Ind Summary, 08 May 1995
8 May 1995
CA

Damages
Damages for emotional distress are not available as a claim to a house buyer against the architect.


 
 Page v Smith; HL 12-May-1995 - Gazette, 14 June 1995; Independent, 12 May 1995; Times, 12 May 1995; (1995) 92 LSG 33; [1995] RTR 210; [1996] AC 155; [1995] 2 All ER 736; [1995] UKHL 7; [1995] PIQR P329; [1995] 2 WLR 644; [1995] 2 Lloyds Rep 95
 
Shepherd v Post Office Ind Summary, 31 July 1995; Times, 15 June 1995
15 Jun 1995
CA

Personal Injury, Damages
A divorced, but reconciled wife was capable of being considered a dependant of the husband, despite the intervening failed marriage.
Fatal Accidents Act 1976 1 (3)(a)

 
White Arrow Express Ltd and Others v Lamey's Distribution Ltd Ind Summary, 26 June 1995; Times, 21 July 1995
26 Jun 1995
CA

Damages, Contract
Where a claim was framed as a fraction of the contract consideration, the plaintiff has fixed his damages. Where he claims to have contracted for a deluxe service rather than a normal level, it was for him to show the difference.


 
 Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth; HL 29-Jun-1995 - Independent, 12 July 1995; Gazette, 06 September 1995; Times, 03 July 1995; [1996] 1 AC 344; [1995] 3 WLR 118; [1995] UKHL 8; [1995] CLC 905; [1995] 3 All ER 268

 
 Halifax Building Society v Thomas and Another; CA 29-Jun-1995 - Independent, 04 August 1995; Times, 04 July 1995; [1996] Ch 217; [1995] EWCA Civ 21; [1995] 4 All ER 673; [1996] 2 WLR 63

 
 Deeny and Others v Gooda Walker Ltd and Others (No 4); QBD 29-Jun-1995 - Times, 29 June 1995

 
 Aitchison v Gordon Durham and Company Limited; CA 30-Jun-1995 - Unreported, 30 June 1995; [1995] EWCA Civ 58

 
 Frost and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire; QBD 3-Jul-1995 - Times, 03 July 1995

 
 Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns (A Firm) and Another; HL 21-Jul-1995 - Gazette, 06 September 1995; Times, 21 July 1995; Independent, 10 August 1995; [1996] 1 AC 421; [1995] UKHL 10; [1995] 3 All ER 785
 
Brown v KMR Services Ltd Times, 26 July 1995; Gazette, 15 September 1995; Independent, 13 September 1995; [1995] 2 Lloyd's Rep 513
26 Jul 1995
CA

Insurance, Damages
The scale of losses alone do not make damages claim too remote if it was nevertheless foreseeable. Liability for damages for negligent advice depends upon type not scale of loss. Claims against underwriters are separate for each year, set-off not allowed.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Crosville Wales Ltd v Tracey Times, 04 August 1995; Independent, 29 August 1995
4 Aug 1995
CA

Employment, Damages
There should be no reduction in an award of damages for unfair dismissal simply for participation in strike where the employee had not been not re-instated after the industrial action.
Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 62 74(6)

 
Mark Joseph Norris (Suing By her Next Friend Winfred Norris) v Julian Tennant-Smith [1995] EWCA Civ 2
7 Sep 1995
CA
Lord Justice Roch Lord Justice Swinton Thomas -And- Lord Justice Aldous
Personal Injury, Damages
The claimant sought damages for personal injuries after being struck by the defendant's car. He had emerged from between parked cars into the path of the defendant. Held: The judge's findings were essentially ones of fact, and his conclusion that the defendant driver had not been negligent could not be disturbed. Appeal dismissed.
[ Bailii ]
 
Western Web Offset Printers Ltd v Independent Media Ltd Times, 10 October 1995
10 Oct 1995
CA

Damages
Damages for repudiation of contract not limited by plaintiffs spare work capacity.

 
Western Web Offset Printers Ltd v Independent Media Ltd Gazette, 18 October 1995
18 Oct 1995
CA

Damages
Damages for loss after repudiation were for full loss of profits.

 
Ter Neuzen v Korn [1995] 3 SCR 674
19 Oct 1995

La Forest, L'Heureux-Dube, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ
Commonwealth, Contract, Negligence, Damages
CANLII (Supreme Court of Canada) The plaintiff underwent AI treatment by the defendant, during the course of which she contracted HIV-AIDS. She claimed in negligence and contract. Held. A court must consider whether a common law warranty of fitness and merchantability should be implied into the contract which includes services as well as the provision of materials. However, such a warranty will not be implied in all circumstances. The court must examine the specific nature of the contract and the relationship between the parties in order to assess whether it was the intention of the parties that such a warranty be implied. Courts must be very cautious in their approach to implying contractual terms. A rationale for implying warranties in contracts of goods and services is that a supplier of goods generally has recourse against the manufacturer under the Sale of Goods Act as a result of the statutory conditions imposed. While it is true that the primary purpose of the implied warranty is to hold the supplier of goods liable notwithstanding the absence of negligence, different considerations apply in the context of the medical profession than in the ordinary commercial context. The doctor cannot trace the liability back to the initial manufacturer. Moreover, it must be recognized that biological products such as blood and semen, unlike manufactured products, carry certain inherent risks. It would be inappropriate to imply a warranty of fitness and merchantability in the circumstances of this case. Moreover, any warranty would simply be to take reasonable care.
[ Canlii ]
 
Stovold v Barlows Gazette, 08 November 1995; Times, 30 October 1995
30 Oct 1995
CA

Damages
Damages for the loss of a sale of a house is a loss of the opportunity not the simple eventual drop in price.


 
 Cala Homes (South) Ltd and Others v Alfred Mcalpine Homes East Ltd; ChD 30-Oct-1995 - Ind Summary, 30 October 1995; [1995] FSR 818
 
Thomas v Brighton Health Authority Times, 10 November 1995
10 Nov 1995
QBD

Damages
The test for investment returns is whether index linked gilts give a more sure return.

 
Regina v Secretary of State for Transport Ex Parte Owen Times, 13 November 1995; [1995] 2 EGLR 213
13 Nov 1995
QBD

Land, Damages
The damages awarded for a compulsory purchase were reduced. The vendor had foreseen the reduction in the value of the land. A significant depreciation of value comes within the expression 'seriously affected' in section 246(2A).
Highways Act 1980 246(2A)
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Jervis v Harris; CA 14-Nov-1995 - Ind Summary, 04 December 1995; Gazette, 24 January 1996; Times, 14 November 1995; [1995] EWCA Civ 9; [1996] Ch 195; [1996] 2 WLR 220; [1996] 1 All ER 303; [1996] 1 EGLR 78; [1996] 10 EG 159
 
First Interstate Bank of California v Cohen Arnold & Co Times, 11 December 1995; [1996] PNLR 45
11 Dec 1995
CA
Ward LJ
Damages
If a guarantor's negligent accountant had not misled the bank by misrepresenting his client's wealth, the bank would have demanded repayment of its secured loan on 30th June 1990. In the event it did not realise the true position until 17th August. The judge held that if it had not been misled the bank would probably have achieved a satisfactory sale of the secured property in a falling market by the end of September in the sum of £2.7 billion, and he awarded the whole of that sum by way of damages (subject to giving credit for the much lower sale price actually achieved). This court held that he had adopted the wrong approach. "[T]here was a confusion between causation and damages and a failure to separate out those matters which had to be proved on the balance of probabilities, those which depended upon finding that chances were substantial, and finally the evaluation of the chance itself." Damages for loss of chance were recoverable, but must be substantial not speculative.
1 Citers



 
 John v MGN Ltd; CA 12-Dec-1995 - Independent, 15 December 1995; Times, 14 December 1995; [1997] QB 586; [1995] 2 All ER 35; [1996] 3 WLR 593; [1995] EWCA Civ 23; [1996] EMLR 229
 
Birse Construction Ltd v Haiste Ltd Gazette, 17 January 1996; Times, 12 December 1995; Ind Summary, 18 December 1995; [1996] 1 WLR 675
12 Dec 1995
CA

Damages
A contribution order was only proper where the damage caused was the same damage to the same person.
Civil Liability (Contributions) Act 1978 2
1 Citers



 
 Personal Representatives of Tang Man Sit v Capacious Investments Ltd; PC 18-Dec-1995 - Gazette, 07 February 1996; Times, 26 December 1995; [1996] AC 514; [1995] UKPC 54; [1996] 1 All ER 193; [1996] 2 WLR 192

 
 Ministry of Defence -v Wheeler; EAT 22-Dec-1995 - Times, 22 December 1995
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.