the price of harassment - damages awarded for personal
injury
the facts
In the case of Jones v Ruth [2011]
EWCA Civ 804 the claimants, Ms Jones and Ms Lovegrove, brought an
action against their neighbours, Mr and Mrs Ruth (the defendants).
The claim arose following extensive building work undertaken by the
defendants which commenced in May 2002. The
work which should have been completed within a year continued over
four years, causing the claimants serious loss of amenity in the
enjoyment of their property.
The claimants' lives were disrupted by
the"excessive and persistent noise and vibration" caused
by the defendants’ building work which amounted to the tort of
nuisance. Furthermore, the defendants were found to have trespassed
on the claimants' garden by the erection of scaffolding; damaged
the claimants' boundary wall; thrown rubbish into the claimants'
garden; and engaged in other anti-social behaviour amounting to
harassment. One of the claimants, Ms Jones, suffered from severe
back pain brought on by the anxiety and depression caused by the
defendants' behaviour. As a result she had not been able to
work since April 2005 and required cognitive behavioural therapy,
physiotherapy and counselling to recover.
The claimants commenced proceedings against
the defendants in February 2008 claiming damages for nuisance and
trespass caused to their property. In addition, and unusually, a
claim was brought against the defendants for personal injury and
financial loss caused by negligence and harassment contrary to
section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1977.
the first instance decision
The case was initially heard in the Technology
and Construction Court before His Honour Judge Wilcox in April
2010. The judge was satisfied that trespass and nuisance had
occurred and awarded the claimants £30,000 for loss of amenity and
enjoyment and £45,000 in lieu of an injunction for the ongoing
trespass. While a further £6,000 was awarded for harassment, the
claim for personal injury and financial loss caused by the
harassment was refused on the basis that these matters were not
reasonably foreseeable.
the issue before the Court of Appeal
The claimants challenged Judge Wilcox's
failure to award them damages for personal injury in consequence of
the harassment. A cross appeal was also issued by the defendants
against the judge's award of £45,000.
The main issue before the Court of Appeal was
whether it was necessary for the injury or loss arising out of the
harassment to be reasonably foreseeable.
the legislation
The Court considered the Protection from
Harassment Act 1977. Under section 1 of the Act, it is unlawful for
a person to pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment
of another and which he knows or should know amounts to harassment.
Harassment was defined in the judgment as "the persistent
tormenting or irritation of the victim" which is deliberate
and of which the "perpetrator either knows or certainly ought
reasonably to be aware has this effect on the
complainant."
Further reference was made to section 3 of the
1977 Act, which provides that:
- 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
- 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.
the outcome
In handing down the leading judgment in this
case, Lord Justice Patten was of the view that there was
"nothing in the statutory language to import an additional
requirement of foreseeability" in respect of a personal injury
arising out of harassment.
The appeal was allowed and the claimant was
awarded £28,750 for general damages and further £115,000 for loss
of earnings.
The cross-appeal was partly allowed and the
£45,000 award was reduced to £15,000.
the implications
The most striking implications of this case
relate to the Court's findings on harassment and particularly
foreseeability.
A person may be liable for any anxiety,
personal injury and/or financial loss caused by harassment. The
correct test will be
- did the conduct of the building work amount
to harassment?
- was it deliberate?
- was the defendant aware of the effect
his behaviour had on the complainant or should he have been
aware of it? and
- was personal injury consequent upon that
behaviour?
If these requirements are satisfied, there is
no need for the personal injury to have been reasonably
foreseeable.
