JONES AND LOVEGROVE V RUTH AND RUTH [2011] EWCA Civ 804
FACTS:-
The Claimants commenced proceedings against the Defendants in relation to works carried out to the Defendant’s adjoining house. They sued for nuisance, trespass, personal injury and financial loss caused by negligence and also under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
The trial judge had found for the Claimants in trespass and nuisance. He awarded the Claimants £30,000 for loss of amenity and enjoyment and a further £45,000 for nuisance. He also awarded Ms. Jones £6,000 for harassment but did not award in terms any damages for the personal injury. He rejected the argument (which was not raised again on appeal) that personal injury damages should be awarded for nuisance and dismissed the claim in negligence on the basis that Ms. Jones had not proved that the injuries that she suffered were attributable to her seeing the damage to her property.
Ms. Jones appealed against the judge’s refusal to award her personal injury damages in relation to the harassment claim.
JUDGEMENT:-
Lord Justice Patten said that the trial judge had not explained why he had not made any personal injury award in relation to the harassment claim. He had later said that there was a requirement for the loss suffered to be reasonably foreseeable.
Section of the 1997 Act stated:-
“(1) An actual or apprehended breach of section 1 may be the subject of a claim in civil proceedings by the person who is or may be the victim of the course of conduct in question.
(2) On such a claim, damages may be awarded for (among other things) any anxiety caused by the harassment and any financial loss resulting from the harassment. “
There was no comprehensive statutory definition of harassment. It might range from actual physical force or the threat of force to much more subtle but nonetheless intimidating conduct.
Patten LJ referred to the case of Laing Ltd v Essa [2004] EWCA Civ 2 which indicated that the 1997 Act did not require foreseeability. He was not persuaded that foreseeability was required for an action based on harassment. There was nothing in the nature of the cause of action which called for further qualification in order to give effect to the obvious policy objectives of the statute, and consequently the trial judge was wrong to exclude an award of damages for personal injury based on an absence of foreseeability. The award made by the trial judge for loss of earnings was £115,000 and for pain and suffering was £28,750.
Lord Justices Aikens and Arden agreed.
FACTS:-
The Claimants commenced proceedings against the Defendants in relation to works carried out to the Defendant’s adjoining house. They sued for nuisance, trespass, personal injury and financial loss caused by negligence and also under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
The trial judge had found for the Claimants in trespass and nuisance. He awarded the Claimants £30,000 for loss of amenity and enjoyment and a further £45,000 for nuisance. He also awarded Ms. Jones £6,000 for harassment but did not award in terms any damages for the personal injury. He rejected the argument (which was not raised again on appeal) that personal injury damages should be awarded for nuisance and dismissed the claim in negligence on the basis that Ms. Jones had not proved that the injuries that she suffered were attributable to her seeing the damage to her property.
Ms. Jones appealed against the judge’s refusal to award her personal injury damages in relation to the harassment claim.
JUDGEMENT:-
Lord Justice Patten said that the trial judge had not explained why he had not made any personal injury award in relation to the harassment claim. He had later said that there was a requirement for the loss suffered to be reasonably foreseeable.
Section of the 1997 Act stated:-
“(1) An actual or apprehended breach of section 1 may be the subject of a claim in civil proceedings by the person who is or may be the victim of the course of conduct in question.
(2) On such a claim, damages may be awarded for (among other things) any anxiety caused by the harassment and any financial loss resulting from the harassment. “
There was no comprehensive statutory definition of harassment. It might range from actual physical force or the threat of force to much more subtle but nonetheless intimidating conduct.
Patten LJ referred to the case of Laing Ltd v Essa [2004] EWCA Civ 2 which indicated that the 1997 Act did not require foreseeability. He was not persuaded that foreseeability was required for an action based on harassment. There was nothing in the nature of the cause of action which called for further qualification in order to give effect to the obvious policy objectives of the statute, and consequently the trial judge was wrong to exclude an award of damages for personal injury based on an absence of foreseeability. The award made by the trial judge for loss of earnings was £115,000 and for pain and suffering was £28,750.
Lord Justices Aikens and Arden agreed.