Damages

Radford v De Froberville [1978]

• Radford obtained planning permission for a house to be built on part of their garden and sold the plot to De Froberville

• De Froberville covenanted to build a wall on her side of the boundary but she failed to do so

• Held: cost of cure was the appropriate measure - reasonable to carry out the work + Radford intended to do so

Ruxley Electronics & Construction Ltd v Forsyth [1996] AC

• Depth of the pool to be 7ft 6 inches

• When built it was only 6ft 9 inches

• To increase the depth would have cost £21,560

• Held: no entitlement to the cost of cure but was awarded damages for ‘loss of amenity’ worth £2500

Jarvis v Swan’s Tours [1974] 1 All ER 71

• Jarvis booked a ski holiday in Switzerland

• Holiday was a disappointment

• Held: damages awarded for loss of enjoyment

  • Lord Denning MR: purpose of a holiday contract is enjoyment - promises not ‘mere puff’ they were contractual descriptions - If the contracting party breaks his contract, damages can be given for the disappointment, the distress, the upset and frustration caused by the breach

Watts v Morrow [1991] 4 All ER 937

• Mr Watts bought a second home in the country in reliance on a survey prepared by the defendant surveyor

• Survey was negligently prepared and failed to mention defects of the property → breach

• Held: damages amounting to £750 awarded to Mr Watts on basis of physical incovenience + discomfort they experienced as a result of the breach

• Bingham LJ: exceptions to the rule that contract breaker is not liable for distress when breaching a contract

  • Exception 1: where the object of a contract is to provide pleasure

  • Exception 2: damages recoverable for physical inconvenience and discomfort caused by the breach and mental suffering directly related to that inconvenience

Farley v Skinner [2001] 4 All ER 801

• Mr Skinner to survey Mr Farleys property near Gatwick airport which he wanted to buy

• After moving in discovered that planes flew directly over - affected by aircraft noise

• Held: awarded damages of £10,000 for mental distress

• Lord Scott: if the cause of the inconvenience or discomfort is a sensory experience damages can be recovered

Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1

• Mr Johnson owned a company - Westway Homes

• Company sued its solicitors for negligent advice

• Johnson personally brought his own claim against Wood for losses he suffered individually

• Wood argued that Johnsons personal claim was an abuse of process - should have been brought in the earlier litigation

• Held: HOL allowed Johnsons claim to proceed

  • Principle from Henderson v Henderson stating that parties should be prevented from raising claims that should have been made earlier is flexible and based on fairness

  • Claim was distinct from company claim

C & P Haulage v Middleton [1983] 1 WLR 1461

• Middleton rented a garage from C & P Haulage

• Contract stated that any fixtures he installed would belong to the landlord and he could not remove them when the tenancy ended

• C & P Haulage wrongfully evicted him before end of the licence

• Middleton claimed reliance damages for the cost of the improvements

• Those improvements were not recoverable under the contract even if it had been properly peformed

• Held: reliance damages cannot be used to escape a bad bargain

Lambert v Lewis [1982] AC 225

• Lambert bought a towing coupling for his trailer from Lewis (supplier)

• Was defective

• Lambert knew it was defective but continued to use it

• Eventually trailer detached while being towed causing a serious accident + injury to a third party

• Held: seller not liable, sellers duty does not extend to losses caused after the buyer discovers the defect - decision to keep using the defective coupling broke the chain of causation

Monarch Steamship Co v Karlshamns Oljefabrieker [1949] AC 196

• Monarch Steamship chartered a ship to carry goods from Shanghai to Sweden

• Ship was unseaworthy

• Ship was delayed

• By the time it reached Europe, WW2 had broken out

• British Admiralty ordered the ship to divert to Glasgow instead of Sweden

• Cargo owner claimed damages for the extra cost of transporting the goods

• Held: shipowner remained liable, no break in chain of causation - the diversion order was a foreseeable consequence of the delay - the unseaworthiness caused the delay - loss was within the scope of D’s responsibility (delay caused by unseaworthiness)

Alderson B in Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch. 341 at 355

• Set out the two limb test for when damages are recoverable

• 1) Damages may be recovered for losses that arise naturally

• 2) Losses that were within the reasonable contemplation of both parties at the time of contracting because the special circumstances were communicated

Victoria Laundry v Newman Industries [1949] 1 All ER 997 

• Victoria Laundry bought a large boiler from Newman industries

• Delivery was five months late due to D’s breach

• Laundry lost ordinary profits and exceptional profits

• Held: ordinary profits recoverable, exceptional profits too remote

  • Ordinary profits were foreseeable

  • Exceptional profits not foreseeable as D did not know about the special gov contract - not within the reasonable contemplation of the parties

Transfield Shipping v Mercator Shipping, The Achilleas [2008] UKHL 48; [2008] 3 W.L.R. 345

• Transfield supposed to return the ship by a fixed date

• Returned it late

• Mercator already negotiated a follow on charter at a high rate

• Because of the delay the new charterer reduced the rate significantly

• Mercator claimed the difference in the entire value of the follow on charter

• Transfield argued only liable for the market rate loss for the period of the delay

• Held: loss of the follow on charter was too remote

• Introduction of the assumption of responsibility

  • Even if a loss is foreseeable, D is only liable if they had assumed responsibility for that type of loss

Sharp Corporation v Viterra BV [2024] UKSC 14

• Principle of mitigation requires the injured party to take all reasonable steps to avoid the consequences of a wrong

• No recovery for a loss which should have been avoided

• Recovery for a loss incurred in taking reasonable mitigating steps even if that decreases the loss

• if the loss is succesfully reduced by taking mitigating steps then the party in breach is entitled to the benefit of that there is no recovery for avoided loss

A-G v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268

• Mr Blake was a member of the secret service

• Given info to the Soviet Union

• Published a book which included a description of his activities in the secret service with royalties of £150,000

• UK gov sought to prevent him from profiting from this breach

• Held: account of profits can be awarded for breach of contract only where

  • Ordinary damages are inadequate

  • Claimaint has a legitimate interest in preventing D’s profit making breach i.e national security, confidentiality, public interest even if claimaint cannot show financial loss

  • Blake ordered to remove profits from the book