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: 1996 To: 1996

This page lists 53 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.

 
Caltex Singapore Pte Ltd v BP Shipping Ltd [1996] 1 Lloyd's Law Rep. 286
1996

Clarke J
Damages, Jurisdiction
A provision of Singapore law giving a ship-owner the right to limit his liability for damage resulting from a collision in Singapore was procedural, or at least not substantive. The limitation in question did not qualify the right of the claimants and could not be regarded as a matter of substantive law for the purposes of the conflicts of laws.
1 Citers


 
Christensen v Scott [1996] 1 NZLR 273
1996

Thomas J
Commonwealth, Company, Damages
(New Zealand Court of Appeal) Thomas J said: “the diminution in the value of Mr and Mrs Christensen’s shares in the company is by definition a personal loss and not a corporate loss. The loss suffered by the company is the loss of the lease and the profit which would have been obtained from harvesting the potato crop. That loss is reflected in the diminution in the value of Mr and Mrs Christensen’s shares. They can no longer realise their shares at the value they enjoyed prior to the alleged default of their accountants and solicitors.” and "We do not need to enter upon a close examination of the Newman Industries decision. It has attracted not insignificant and, at times, critical comment. See eg L C B Gower, Gower's Principles of Modern Company Law (5th ed, 1992) at pp 647-653; L S Sealy, "Problems of Standing, Pleading and Proof in Corporate Litigation" (Ed, B.G. Pettit) at p 1 esp at pp 6-10; and M J Sterling, "The Theory and Policy of Shareholder Actions in Tort" (1987) 50 MLR. 468, esp at pp 470-474. It may be accepted that the Court of Appeal was correct, however, in concluding that a member has no right to sue directly in respect of a breach of duty owed to the company or in respect of a tort committed against the company. Such claims can only be bought by the company itself or by a member in a derivative action under an exception to the rule in Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461. But this is not necessarily to exclude a claim brought by a party, who may also be a member, to whom a separate duty is owed and who suffers a personal loss as a result of a breach of that duty Where such a party, irrespective that he or she is a member, has personal rights and these rights are invaded, the rule in Foss v Harbottle is irrelevant. Nor would the claim necessarily have the calamitous consequences predicted by counsel in respect of the concept of corporate personality and limited liability. The loss arises not from a breach of duty owed to the company but from a breach of duty owed to the individuals. The individual is simply suing to vindicate his own right or redress a wrong done to him or her giving rise to a personal loss.
Thomas J continued: "We consider, therefore, that it is certainly arguable that, where there is an independent duty owed to the plaintiff and a breach of that duty occurs, the resulting loss may be recovered by the plaintiff. The fact that the loss may also be suffered by the company does not mean that it is not also a personal loss to the individual. Indeed, the diminution in the value of Mr and Mrs Christensen's shares in the company is by definition a personal loss and not a corporate loss. The loss suffered by the company is the loss of the lease and the profit which would have been obtained from harvesting the potato crop. That loss is reflected in the diminution in the value of Mr and Mrs Christensen's shares. They can no longer realise their shares at the value they enjoyed prior to the alleged default of their accountants and solicitors. (For a discussion of the policy issues which arise in considering these questions, see Sterling (supra) at pp 474-491.) In circumstances of this kind the possibility that the company and the member may seek to hold the same party liable for the same loss may pose a difficulty. Double recovery, of course, cannot be permitted. The problem does not arise in this case, however, as the company has chosen to settle its claim. Peat Marwick and McCaw Lewis accepted a compromise in the knowledge that Mr and Mrs Christensen's claim was outstanding. It may well be, as was acknowledged by Mr Pidgeon in the course of argument, that an allowance will need to be made for the amount already paid to the liquidator in settlement of the company's claim. It is to be acknowledged, however, that the problem of double recovery may well arise in other cases. No doubt, such a possibility is most likely with smaller private companies where the interrelationship between the company, the directors and the shareholders may give rise to independent duties on the part of the professional advisers involved. But the situation where one defendant owes a duty to two persons who suffer a common loss is not unknown in the law, and it will need to be examined in this context. It may be found that there is no necessary reason why the company's loss should take precedence over the loss of the individuals who are owed a separate duty of care. To meet the problem of double recovery in such circumstances it will be necessary to evolve principles to determine which party or parties will be able to seek or obtain recovery. A stay of one proceeding may be required. Judgment, with a stay of execution against one or other of the parties, may be in order. An obligation to account in whole or in part may be appropriate. The interest of creditors who may benefit if one party recovers and not the other may require consideration. As the problem of double recovery does not arise in this case, however, it is preferable to leave an examination of these issues to a case where that problem is squarely in point. "
and "Essentially, Mr and Mrs Christensen are alleging that as a result of Peat Marwick and McCaw Lewis's breach of duty owed to them personally they suffered a personal loss, that is, a reduction in the value of their assets. Their assets in this case had been channelled into their company. Thus, it is arguable that the diminution in the value of their shareholding is the measure of that loss. It may well be that when the evidence is heard it will be apparent that Mr and Mrs Christensen's claim is inflated, but that is a matter for the trial. We are not prepared to hold at this stage that they do not have an arguable case to recover damages for the breach of an acknowledged duty.""
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Brooks v Charleroi International Ltd ET3100350/96
1996


Discrimination, Damages

1 Citers


 
County Ltd v Girozentrale Securities [1996] 3 All ER 834
1996
CA
Beldam, Hobhouse LJJ
Negligence, Damages
The plaintiff bank had agreed to underwrite a share placement. The defendant brokers made representations to potential investors outside and in breach of the terms of the engagement letter. The bank failed to check on the status of indicative commitments obtained by the chairman of the company. A significant number of shares were not taken up, and the bank held a loss. At trial Judge had held that "the brokers' representations were not of equal efficacy with the bank's decision to accept the quality of the indicative commitments . . without making proper inquiries" Held: The bank's appeal succeeded. It was entitled to recover its loss from the brokers.
Hobhouse LJ said: "Where a plaintiff does not know of a defendant's breach of contract and where he is entitled to rely upon the defendant having performed his contract, it will only be in the most exceptional circumstances that conduct of the plaintiff suffices to break the causal relationship between the defendant's breach and the plaintiff's loss.
The plaintiffs' conduct was not voluntary in the sense of being undertaken with a knowledge of its significance. Conduct which is undertaken without an appreciation of the existence of the earlier causal factor will normally only suffice to break the causal relationship if the conduct was reckless. It is the character of reckless conduct that it makes the actual state of knowledge of that party immaterial."
There is a close relationship between the application of such concepts as remoteness, contributory negligence and causation. Where a defendant's breach of contract remains an effective cause of the loss, at least ordinarily, the chain of causation will not be broken.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Girvan v Inverness Farmers Dairy and Another 1996 SC 135
1996
IHCS
Lord McCluskey
Scotland, Damages
The claimant sought damages. One of the heads of claim that were not in dispute was that the pursuer's injuries had made it impossible for him to continue as a dedicated clay pigeon shot and had as a result lost the very real prospect of winning substantial cash prizes and other valuable trophies and prizes.
1 Citers



 
 Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society; CA 1996 - [1996] 4 All ER 119
 
Dureau v Evans [1996] PIQR Q18
1996
CA
Kennedy LJ
Personal Injury, Damages
The court considered the difficulty of quantifying damages in cases involving multiple injuries.
Kennedy LJ said: "Help is to be obtained from any source where it happens to be available. To a limited extent, in a case where there are multiple injuries, the figures in the Judicial Studies Board table can help but I accept Mr Murphy's criticism of them that, where one has a multiplicity of injuries, it is necessary to take an overall view. The off setting process may mean it is not possible to derive a great deal of benefit from that particular source. One then looks to see if anything can be gained from looking at a comparable award, if one is to be found, in another case. Even that may not prove to be a particularly fruitful source of enquiry. It may be necessary, if it be possible, to select what may be the most serious head of injury to see if a comparable award can be found in relation to that and, if so, build on it to allow for the other heads of injury which have been sustained by the plaintiff in the instant case."
1 Citers


 
Oswald v Countrywide Surveyors Ltd (1996) 50 Con LR 1
1996


Construction, Damages
The evidential burden of establishing betterment is on the defendant.
1 Citers


 
McLaren Transport Ltd v Somerville [1996] 3 NZLR 424
1996

Tipping J
Damages
(New Zealand) Tipping J discussed the award of exemplary damages: “Exemplary damages for negligence causing personal injury may be awarded if, but only if, the level of negligence is so high that it amounts to an outrageous and flagrant disregard for the plaintiff’s safety, meriting condemnation and punishment.”
1 Citers


 
Alexander v Rolls Royce Ltd [1996] RTR 95
1996
CA
Beldam LJ
Damages, Road Traffic
The claimant was not entitled to damages for loss of enjoyment in the use of his Rolls Royce whilst it was off the road after an accident.
1 Citers


 
Porter v Secretary of State for Transport [1996] 3 All ER 693
1996
CA
Stuart Smith LJ
Land, Damages, Estoppel
Land had been compulsorily acquired for a road. The plaintiff was granted on appeal under section 18 of the 1961 Act a certificate of appropriate alternative development in respect of the land acquired, namely that the land acquired would have been suitable for residential development. Held. On a valuation on a compulsory purchase of land, the value is not dependent on findings on probabilities or even that "it could reasonably have been expected that planning permission would be granted".
Stuart Smith LJ set out the four elements for an issue estoppel: "It is common ground that four matters have to be established if there is to be an issue estoppel. "(1) The issue in question must have been decided by a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction.
(2) The issue must be one which arises between parties who are parties to the decision. This also is accepted.
(3) The issue must have been decided finally and must be of a type to which an issue estoppel can apply.
(4) The issue in respect of which the estoppel is said to operate must be the same as that previously decided." and “Where a court or tribunal has to decide what would have happened in a hypothetical situation which does not exist, it usually has to approach the matter on the basis of assessing what were the chances or prospect of it happening. The chance may be almost a certainty at one end to a mere speculative hope at the other. The value will depend on how good this chance is. Where, however, the court or tribunal has to decide what in fact has happened as an historical fact, it does so on balance of probability; and once it decides that it is more probable than not, then the fact is found and is established as a certainty. This distinction is well illustrated by Davies v Taylor [1972] 3 All ER 836, [1974] AC 207 and Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons & Simmons (a firm) [1995] 4 All ER 907, [1995] 1 WLR 1602.,br />It would be unnecessary for the Secretary of State to evaluate the chance of the eastern route being the preferred alternative route in the event that the actual route was not chosen, provided it was more than 50%; but the Lands Tribunal would be concerned in assessing value to evaluate the chances of this happening more precisely.”
Compulsory Purchase Act 1965
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Wapshott v Davis Donovan and Co [1996] PNLR 361
1996
CA
Beldam LJ, Hobhouse LJ
Damages, Professional Negligence
The defendant solicitors had negligently in 1986 failed to advise purchasers that there was no good title to part (an extension over an adjoining property) of a leasehold flat which they were buying. The problem came to light in 1988 when they wished to sell. They were unable to do so. In 1990 a property company, which had in the interim acquired the freeholds of both properties, registered the titles; and eventually in 1992 the original purchasers of the flat successfully registered the leasehold title to their flat, which thereby became sellable. The solicitors applied to adduce further evidence in negligence proceedings then current in order to rely on these subsequent events, it being said that the plaintiffs would otherwise be overcompensated. Held: Such subsequent events were "irrelevant" to the issue which had to be determined. Thus the Master assessing the actual value of the lease with a defective title in 1986 could not properly pay regard to events which were taking place in 1992.
Hobhouse LJ emphasised that: "Cases of this kind depend on their own facts."
1 Citers


 
Appleton and others v Garrett [1996] PIQR P1
1996


Personal Injury, Damages
The plaintiffs were patients of the defendant dentist who had carried out unnecessary treatment on them; they claimed damages for trespass and sought aggravated damages. Held: There was no reason in principle why awards of aggravated damages should not be made for feelings of anger or indignation in cases of trespass to the person where injury to the feelings were an important part of the damage for which compensation was awarded: "To say that the law permits recovery of aggravated damages where the relevant conduct has caused injury to feelings, insult indignity, humiliation and a heightened sense of injury or grievance, but not where it has caused anger or indignation, is very difficult to justify in terms of principle or common sense". The plaintiffs were entitled to aggravated but moderate damages: "If substantial awards are made to reflect the court’s disapproval of the defendant’s conduct, they would become punitive. It is important to keep in mind that aggravated damages are compensatory."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society; CA 10-Jan-1996 - Gazette, 10 January 1996; Independent, 04 January 1996; Times, 08 December 1995; [1996] 4 All ER 119
 
Focsa Services (UK) Ltd v Birkett Gazette, 10 July 1996; (1996) IRLR 325; [1996] UKEAT 826_95_3001
30 Jan 1996
EAT
Clark J
Employment, Damages
An IT was wrong to calculate damages for breach of contract as if it was a finding of unfair dismissal.
Clark J said: "The fallacy in our judgment, in the chairman's reasoning is to disregard the normal common law rules as to loss in cases of wrongful dismissal. That loss is limited to the sums payable to the employee had the employment been lawfully terminated under the contract. Once a dismissal has taken place, as was accepted and found in this case, it is irrelevant to consider what might have happened had a contractual disciplinary procedure been followed. An employer is entitled to dismiss on contractual notice at common law for whatever reason.
The fact is that Mr Birkett was dismissed. In so far as he did not receive his full notice, he is generally entitled to damages to reflect the pay during the notice period and no more. The only exception is where employment would have been extended by operating the disciplinary procedure: Boyo v London Borough of Lambeth [1995] IRLR 50; Gunton v London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames [1980] IRLR 321 . ."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Scotland v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police Times, 30 January 1996
30 Jan 1996
CA

Damages, Police
In a false imprisonment case, the Judge is to give guidance only to the jury on possible damages awards.

 
Homsy v Murphy [1996] 73 P&CR 26; (1996) EGCS 43
27 Feb 1996
CA
Beldam, Hobhouse, Aldous LJJ
Damages, Land
The plaintiff held a right of pre-emption over the freehold reversion on the building containing his flat. He appealed the award of £5.00 damages for its breach. The judge had discounted an offer received by the plaintiff of £100,000 for the grant of a lease of another part of the building. The judge had made allowance for the general fall in property prices, but in doing so mis-stated the date of the Gulf War. Held: The loss had been miscalculated. The loss would be the value at the time, less the price set to be paid on exercise of the right.
1 Citers



 
 Deeny and Others v Gooda Walker Ltd (In Liquidation) (No 2) Albert and Others v Same Etc; HL 8-Mar-1996 - Gazette, 24 April 1996; Times, 08 March 1996
 
Chiron Corporation and Others v Murex Diagnostics Ltd (No 11) Times, 15 March 1996
15 Mar 1996
ChD

Damages
A large interim award of damages can be proper if it is less than the likely damages which would be awarded at trial despite their remaining outstanding issues of fact to be decided.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Kennedy v K B Van Emden and Co; Jordan v Gershon Young Finer and Green and Similar Gazette, 01 May 1996; Times, 05 April 1996; [1997] 2 EGLR 137
27 Mar 1996
CA
Lord Justice Nourse, Lord Justice Ward and Lord Justice Schiemann
Damages, Professional Negligence, Landlord and Tenant
A solicitor failed in 1983 to advise a purchaser of the fact that premium she was paying on purchasing a leasehold flat was unlawful under the Act, and would be unrecoverable on the sale. Before trial however, in 1989 the law changed and the premium would now be recoverable. Held: It was wrong to assess damages mechanistically, and though the usual rule would be to test the damages at the date of loss, it was right to include an assessment at the date of trial if that gave a better view of the actual loss.
Nourse LJ said: "the damages are to be assessed in the real world. Compensation is a reward for real, not hypothetical, loss. It is not to be made an occasion for recovery in respect of a loss which might have been, but has not been, suffered."
Rent Act 1977 127
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Vernon v Bosley (2) Times, 04 April 1996; [1998] 1 FLR 304; [1997] 1 All ER 577; [1996] EWCA Civ 1310
29 Mar 1996
CA
Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, Lord Justice Evans and Lord Justice Thorpe
Personal Injury, Damages
The defendant had been driving the plaintiff's daughters, but negligently caused an accident from which they died. The plaintiff was called to the accident, and claimed to have suffered post traumatic stress. The defendant said that the effect was explainable simply as grief. The defendant appealed against the quantum of damages. Held: Damages for nervous shock are not to be reduced for irrecoverable normal grief symptoms. Nervous shock, as distinct from grief and other emotional sufferings resulting from bereavement, was a kind of injury which was recognised by the law. Therefore, damages were recoverable for nervous shock caused, or at least contributed to, by actionable negligence of the defendant, even though the illness might also be a pathological consequence of the bereavement which the plaintiff would have inevitably have suffered. Thorpe LJ: Grief constituting pathological grief disorder is a recognizable psychiatric illness and is recoverable.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Melville v Bruton; CA 29-Mar-1996 - Times, 03 April 1996; Times, 29 March 1996; [1996] TLR 191; (1996) 29 HLR 319
 
Downs and Another v Chappell and Another [1996] EWCA Civ 1358; [1996] 3 All ER 344; [1996] CLC 1492; [1997] 1 WLR 426
3 Apr 1996
CA
Butler-Sloss, Roch, Hobhouse LJJ
Torts - Other, Damages
The plaintiffs had suceeded in variously establishing claims in deceit and negligence, but now appealed against the finding that no damages had flowed from the wrongs. They had been sold a business on the basis of incorrect figures. Held: Where a plaintiff has been induced to enter into a transaction by a misrepresentation, whether fraudulent or negligent, he is entitled to recover as damages the amount of the (consequential) loss which he has suffered by reason of entering into the transaction. The principle is the same. Where the representation relates to the profitability and, by necessary inference, the viability of the business, the plaintiff can recover both his income and his capital losses in the business.
"Causation and the assessment of damages is a matter of fact. In a misrepresentation case, where the plaintiff would not have entered into the transaction, he is entitled to recover all the losses he has suffered, both capital and income, down to the date that he discovers that he had been misled and he has an opportunity to avoid further loss. The diminution in value test will normally be inappropriate. Where what is bought is a business the losses made in the business are prima facie recoverable as is the reduction in the value of the business and its premises. Foreseeable market fluctuations are not too remote and should be taken into account either way in the relevant account. These cases do not however discuss whether there is any question of causation beyond the no-transaction test. In my judgment it may still be necessary to consider whether it can fairly and properly be said that all the losses flowing from the entry into the transaction in question were caused by the tort of the defendant. "
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Lion Nathan Limited and others v C C Bottlers Limited and others; PC 14-May-1996 - Times, 16 May 1996; Gazette, 26 June 1996; [1996] UKPC 9; [1996] 1 WLR 1438
 
Unifruit Hellas Epe v European Community Commission Gazette, 30 May 1996
30 May 1996
ECJ

Damages
Aa action for damages under the Treaty is an autonomous action; land a loss does not defeat any other claim.
European Union Treaty art 178


 
 South Australia Asset Management Corporation v York Montague Ltd etc; HL 24-Jun-1996 - Gazette, 04 September 1996; Times, 24 June 1996; [1997] AC 191; [1996] PNLR 455; [1996] 27 EG 125; [1996] 3 WLR 87; [1996] UKHL 10; [1996] 3 All ER 365; [1996] 2 EGLR 93; 80 BLR 1; [1996] 5 Bank LR 211; [1996] CLC 1179; [1996] 50 Con LR 153

 
 Dobson and Dobson v North Tyneside Health Authority and Newcastle Health Authority; CA 26-Jun-1996 - Times, 15 July 1996; Gazette, 29 August 1996; [1997] 1 WLR 596; [1996] EWCA Civ 1301; (1997) 33 BMLR 146,; [1997] 1 FLR 598; [1997] 8 Med LR 357; [1996] 4 All ER 474; [1997] Fam Law 326; [1997] 2 FCR 651

 
 Phipps v Brooks Dry Cleaning Services Ltd; CA 18-Jul-1996 - Gazette, 02 August 1996; Times, 18 July 1996
 
Kiam v Neill and Another (No 2) Times, 26 July 1996; [1996] EMLR 493
26 Jul 1996
CA

Defamation, Damages
An allegation of insolvency was made against a well known businessman. An apology in agreed terms was published after 3 weeks. Held: A jury award of 45,000 in damages was not excessive for a libel despite an apology having been given. The plaintiff's prominence was a relevant circumstance.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
St Albans City and District Council v International Computers Ltd Times, 14 August 1996; [1996] 4 All ER 481; [1996] EWCA Civ 1296
14 Aug 1996
CA
Sir Ian Glidewell, Nourse LJ
Damages, Contract
The council purchased software from the defendants to calculate council taxes. Mistakes in the software undercalculated the amounts required to be recovered causing the council substantial losses. The company sought to rely upon a clause in the contract limiting the extent of their liability. Held: The clause was unreasonable in the light of the very substantial nature of the defendant's business, the availabiliity to them of insurance in sums far greater than the limit of liability, and inequality of bargaining power. However, the damages payable for revenue lost because of faulty software were reduced to allow for the recovery of the losses in subsequent tax years.
Nourse LJ: "Parties who agree respectively to supply and acquire a system recognizing that it is still in the course of development cannot be taken, merely by virtue of that recognition, to intend that the supplier shall be at liberty to supply software which cannot perform the function expected of it at the stage of development at which it is supplied".
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Woodall v Hughes [1996] EWCA Civ 585
19 Aug 1996
CA

Personal Injury, Damages

[ Bailii ]
 
Ali Abdel Ghani ATA and Another v American Express Bank Ltd Unreported, 07 October 1996
7 Oct 1996
ComC
Rix J
Banking, Damages
ComC Banking - bank - acting as counter-party - discretion to trade - failure to exercise discretion - damages - causation - assumptions to be made - common-sense
1 Citers


 
O'Driscoll v Hadjimina [1996] EWCA Civ 677
8 Oct 1996
CA

Housing, Damages

[ Bailii ]
 
Thorn v Powergen Plc [1996] EWCA Civ 700
11 Oct 1996
CA

Personal Injury, Damages

[ Bailii ]
 
David Lawrence Headon Owen Barbara Nesta Owen v Secretary of State for Transport [1996] EWCA Civ 712
14 Oct 1996
CA

Land, Damages, Transport

Highways Act 1980
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Margaret Thelma Wells (Suing By Her Daughter and Next Friend Susan Smith) v Derek Sydney Wells; James Oliver Thomas v Brighton Health Authority; Kelvin Page v Sheerness Steel Company Limited Gazette, 30 October 1996; Times, 24 October 1996; [1996] EWCA Civ 784; [1996] PIQR Q26; [1997] 1 WLR 652
23 Oct 1996
CA
Dyson LJ
Damages
The plaintiff was a member of a scheme providing permanent health insurance benefits. The issue was whether the insurance monies received by the plaintiff were to be treated as sick pay (and therefore deductible from the damages) or insurance monies falling within the insurance exception. Held: "In my view it is quite wrong to treat the plaintiff's membership of the Sick Pay Insurance Scheme in the present case as a contract of insurance within the meaning of the exception. There is no contract between the plaintiff and the insurance company. He did not pay the premiums. There is no evidence that the plaintiff would have got more pay but for the insurance, or that the existence of the insurance had an effect on his remuneration . .
I cannot accept Mr Purchas's submission that it is immaterial whether the plaintiff paid or contributed to the premiums or gave consideration for the insurance in some other way. It seems to me that it is an essential requirement of the insurance exception that the cost of the insurance be borne wholly or at least in part by the plaintiff. There are cases where insurance is provided by the employer at no cost to the plaintiff . ." The expected rate of return on damages to be invested is to be anticipated as what a prudent investor might achieve.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Bence Graphics International Ltd v Fasson UK Ltd; CA 24-Oct-1996 - Gazette, 30 October 1996; Times, 24 October 1996; [1996] EWCA Civ 748; [1998] QB 87
 
Frost and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and Others Times, 06 November 1996; [1996] EWHC CA 173
31 Oct 1996
CA

Personal Injury, Damages
The distinction normally made between primary and secondary victims claiming damages for shock in witnessing a terrible event does not apply to employees who were obliged by their contract to be present.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Abdel-Hadey Mahmoud Bayoumi v Protim Services Limited [1996] EWCA Civ 885; (1996) 30 HLR 785
6 Nov 1996
CA
Swinton Thomas LJ
Contract, Damages
The county court judge had allowed damages to the claimant, who owned a property which suffered from persistent water penetration, general damages for breach of the 1972 Act, the sum of £1,500 a year for the four years during which the problems lasted, making a total of £6,000 in all. The judge made it clear that this was an award of general damages for loss of use and enjoyment. Held: The contractor's appeal failed. Swinton Thomas LJ held that such damages were recoverable for breach of Section 1. The loss of use claims had been properly pleaded and: "The Judge allowed a figure of £1,500 per year for four years making a total of £6,000. In my view that item of damages is clearly allowable under the provisions of the Defective Premises Act, and I do not myself think that it has been shown that his assessment, either in terms of the annual value or the period of time, was excessive."
Defective Premises Act 1972 81
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
McFarlane v Tayside Health Board Times, 11 November 1996
11 Nov 1996
OHCS

Personal Injury, Damages, Scotland
No damages are awardable for the birth of child following the failure of a vasectomy. It is against public policy to treat the birth of a child as a loss.
1 Citers


 
Cook v South West Water Services Ltd [1996] EWCA Civ 924
11 Nov 1996
CA

Land, Utilities, Damages

[ Bailii ]

 
 Smith New Court Securities Ltd v Scrimgeour Vickers; HL 21-Nov-1996 - Gazette, 13 December 1996; Times, 22 November 1996; [1996] UKHL 3; [1997] AC 254; [1996] 4 All ER 769; [1996] 3 WLR 1051

 
 Louis v Sadiq; CA 22-Nov-1996 - Gazette, 13 December 1996; Times, 22 November 1996; [1997] 1 EGLR 136
 
Gardner v Marsh and Parsons (a Firm), Dyson Gazette, 13 December 1996; Times, 02 December 1996; [1996] EWCA Civ 940; [1997] 1 WLR 489
2 Dec 1996
CA
Hirst LJ, Pill LJ
Damages, Professional Negligence
Damages awarded against a surveyor for a negligent survey which had missed certain defects, were not to be reduced for repairs later carried out by the landlord at his own expense. The trial judge decided to award damages reflecting the difference between the value of the property without the defects and its value with them at the date of purchase. Held: (Peter Gibson LJ dissenting) The damages were calculated assuming a hypothetical sale. The issue of the landlord's repairs were res inter alios, and were collateral to the surveyors negligence.
Hirst LJ, after reviewing a number of authorities, described the case "as a straightforward Philips v Ward type of case", and as to the argument that the loss had been avoided, he said: "having regard to intervening events and to the long interval of time, the repairs executed in 1990 were not part of a continuous transaction of which the purchase of the lease as a result of [the surveyors] negligence was the inception. Furthermore, these repairs undertaken by [the landlords] at the plaintiff's insistence were res inter alios acta and therefore collateral to [the surveyor's] negligence."
Pill LJ agreed as to the facts, concluding that "the facts relied upon as affecting the measure of damages are too remote to be taken into consideration . ."
Peter Gibson LJ said: "The law does not permit the plaintiff to recover more than is seen to be his actual loss and the rules of mitigation may deprive the plaintiff of all or part of the damages for loss which otherwise he might have recovered."
if a plaintiff in fact avoids or mitigates his loss he could not recover for the loss thereby avoided even if the steps taken were more than could reasonably be required under the duty to mitigate. He said this at p.508, after reviewing various authorities: "Whilst Philips v Ward establishes that the measure of damages is the price paid less the market value of the property at the date of the breach, even though the cost of repairing the property may be greater or smaller than that, it does not follow that the rules of mitigation can never apply to such a case. That would be contrary to the British Westinghouse principle. Indeed as Mustill LJ pointed out in Hussey v Eels [1990] 2 QB 227, 233, any generalisation that where a loss has crystallised in terms of there being a conventional measure of damages at the date of breach, there can be no mitigation as shown by the Pagnan case [1970] 1 WLR 1306 to be unsound. For my part I cannot see why the advantage accruing from the action of the plaintiff in that case to mitigate his loss, viz. the elimination of the risk to the house by the felling of the poplars, should be left out of account in arriving at the award of damages and there is nothing in Philips v Ward [1956] 1 WLR 471 to compel such a result . . "
He described Hussey v Eels as "an exceptional case turning on its own facts" and said: "The common sense of the situation in the present case is that once the Plaintiffs were aware that they had purchased a structurally defective property of less value than the price they had paid as a result of the Defendants' negligence, they sensibly and promptly took steps to eliminate their loss by procuring the remedying by the freeholder of the defect. That seems to me plainly an act of mitigation resulting in a benefit to the Plaintiffs which eliminated their loss. I repeat what the Judge said, that they have a rectified property worth the equivalent of what they had paid for it without any extra cost to them. The significant point is that this occurred as a result of the pressure applied to the freeholder by the Plaintiffs. To take an example suggested by Mr. Brunner, if the Plaintiffs had sued both the freeholder under the Defective Premises Act 1972 and the Defendants in negligence in the same action they could not expect to recover damages in full from the freeholder as well as damages in full from the Defendants. Once the property had been put in repair at no cost to the Plaintiffs, in my judgment they cannot be allowed to obtain double recovery by an award of damages against the Defendants. To adapt the words of Salmon L.J. in R. Pagnan & Fratelli v Corbisa Industrial Agropacuria Limitada [1970] 1 WLR 1306, 1316, to allow the plaintiffs' claim would be contrary to justice, common sense and the British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co. Ltd v Underground Electric Railways Co. of London Ltd. [1912] A.C. 673 principle."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Jenkyns v Barnard and Urquhart T/a BUJ Architects [1996] EWCA Civ 1154
10 Dec 1996
CA

Damages

[ Bailii ]

 
 Jones v Pollard; Mirror Group Newspapers; Limited and Bailey; CA 12-Dec-1996 - [1996] EWCA Civ 1186; [1997] EMLR 233; [1997] QB 586
 
Corporacion Nacional Del Cobre Gazette, 13 December 1996
13 Dec 1996
ChD

Damages, Equity
No defence of contributory negligence was to be allowed against a claim involving an allegation of corruption by means of bribery. The defendants had bribed one of the plaintiff's employees. The plaintiff claimed restitution, and an account from the defendants as constructive trustees for profits. The defendants wanted to assert that there was an equivalent to contributory negligence within the law of equity. There was no proper reason for distinguishing deceit by bribery from other forms of deceit. There had to be something to have put the plaintiff on notice of the deceit, and that was absent here.


 
 Sidhu and Others v British Airways Plc; Abnett (Known as Sykes) v Same; HL 13-Dec-1996 - Gazette, 15 January 1997; Times, 13 December 1996; [1996] UKHL 5; [1997] AC 431; [1997] All ER 193; [1997] 2 WLR 26,
 
Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corporation and Another [1996] EWCA Civ 1235; [1999] 1 LI Rep 747
17 Dec 1996
CA

Damages

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Gerber Garment Technology Inc v Lectra Systems Limited Lectra Systemes SA Times, 17 January 1997; [1996] EWCA Civ 1245; [1997] RPC 443
18 Dec 1996
CA
Staughton LJ
Intellectual Property, Damages
The plaintiffs claimed damages for patent infringement. Some of the lost profits for which the plaintiff company claimed damages were suffered by subsidiary companies in which it held all the shares. Held: When a shareholder has a cause of action but his company has none, he can recover damages measured by the reduction in value of his shareholding; but that the plaintiff must prove the amount of his own loss and that it cannot be assumed that this is the same as the loss suffered by the company. There is no rule of law limiting damages which can be awarded for patent infringement to monopoly profits only. Infringement of a patent is a statutory tort; and the damages recoverable should be governed by the same rules as with many or most other torts. The victim should be restored to the position he would have been in if no wrong had been done, and the victim can recover a loss which was (i) foreseeable, (ii) caused by the wrong, and (iii) not excluded from recovery by public or social policy. The requirement of causation is sometimes confused with foreseeability, which is remoteness. The two are different.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Bence Graphics International Limited v Fasson UK Limited (2) [1996] EWCA Civ 1260
19 Dec 1996
CA

Damages, Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Crampton v Nugawela [1997] Aust Torts Reports 81-416; (1996) 41 NSWLR 176; [1996] NSWSC 651
23 Dec 1996

Mahoney ACJ, Handley JA, Giles AJA
Commonwealth, Defamation, Damages
(Supreme Court of New South Wales) Defamation - Damages - Aggravated and general damages - Economic loss with respect to professional standing - Principles relevant to assessment of damages for defamation - Relationship to damages for serious personal injury
When considering the likelihood of repetition of a libel once published, the court spoke of 'the grapevine effect'.
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]

 
 Johnson v HM Prison Service and Others; EAT 31-Dec-1996 - Times, 31 December 1996; [1997] IRLR 162; [1997] ICR 275
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.