Hanifa Dobson & Others v Thames Water Utilities Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Ramsey |
| Judgment Date | 17 April 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWHC 986 (TCC) |
| Date | 17 April 2012 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Technology and Construction Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HT-06-04 |
[2012] EWHC 986 (TCC)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Hon Mr Justice Ramsey
Case No: HT-06-04
Mr Stephen Hockman QC and Mr John Bates (instructed by Hugh James) for the Claimants
Mr David Hart QC (instructed by Osborne Clarke) for the Defendants Judgment (Number 3)
Judgment (Number 3)
Introduction
In this judgment I deal with the claim by the Schedule A Claimants ("the Claimants") for interest on the general damages which I awarded for nuisance in the Second Judgment, [2011] EWHC 3253 (TCC). There is a disagreement between the parties about the basis on which interest should be awarded on an award of general damages for nuisance
Submissions
The Claimants claim interest under section 35A of the Senior Courts Act 1981. They point out that the award of general damages was based on a percentage of the monthly rental values for each property and was assessed as a sum by way of damages for each year. They say that where, for instance, Mr Taylor was awarded damages for the period 1999 to 2007, he has been deprived of the money awarded as damages in respect of the year 1999 for 12 years and therefore they submit that it would be just to award him interest on that sum. They submit that such interest should be awarded at the full special account rate from the end of each calendar year during which the nuisance was suffered until payment.
Thames Water, on the other hand, submit that the Claimants' approach to interest on general damages is contrary to authority. They say that the general damages awarded to the Claimants are damages in respect of non—pecuniary loss. Those damages, they say, were awarded for interference with the enjoyment and amenity of land, as stated by Lord Hoffman in Hunter v Canary Wharf Limited [1997] AC 655 at 706C. Thames Water submit that the damages are for the damage which is presumed to flow from the nuisance and is therefore to be contrasted with special damages. They submit that the loss compensated by general damages is not an actual monetary loss but is loss for the interference with the amenity value of the land caused by nuisance which is non-pecuniary damage, notwithstanding that it is assessed by reference to a pecuniary proxy in the form of diminution in the letting value over the relevant period.
Thames Water submit that, as a result, the quantum of general damages was assessed as at the date of the judgment and they rely on a passage in the speech of Lord Diplock in Wright v British Railways Board [1983] 2 AC 773 at 782 C. They say that the award of general damages in this case reflected the value of money at the date of judgment and not at any earlier point in time. They say that the awards were intended to and did reflect the compensation payable to the claimants in respect of the nuisance for the whole period of their claims. If, they say, the Claimants considered that the assessment of general damages was too low because the damages did not reflect the value of money at the date of judgment then the claimants' remedy would be to appeal that assessment and not to claim interest.
Thames Water rely on the practice laid down by the Court of Appeal in Jefford v Gee [1970] 2 QB 130 in relation to awarding interest on general damages for non pecuniary loss in personal damages cases. In that case the Court of Appeal held that interest ran from the date of service of proceedings to the date of judgment and was not awarded as compensation for the damage done but was awarded to a Claimant for being kept out of the money which ought to have been paid to him: see Jefford v Gee at 146A. They say that, as confirmed by the House of Lords in Wright v British Railways Board, the rate of interest on general damages for non-economic loss should be 2% per annum between service of proceedings and the date of judgment.
In reply, the Claimants refer to a passage in the speech of Lord Diplock in Wright v British Railways Board at 777 B-D in which he dealt with the predictability of damages for personal injuries and said this:
The principal characteristics of actions for personal injuries that militate against predictability as to the sum recoverable are, first, that the English legal system requires that any judgment for tort damages, not being continuing tort, shall be for one lump sum to compensate for all loss sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of the defendant's tortious act whether such loss be economic or non-economic, and whether it has been sustained during the period prior to the judgment or is expected to be sustained thereafter. The second characteristic is that non-economic loss constitutes a major item in the damages. Such loss is not susceptible of measurement in money. Any figure at which the assessor of damages arrives cannot be other than artificial and, if the aim is that justice meted out to all litigants should be even-handed instead of depending on idiosyncrasies of the assessor, whether jury or judge, the figure must be basically a conventional figure derived from experience and from awards in comparable cases.
Decision
The statutory basis for the claim for interest is section 35A of the Senior Courts Act 1981 which provides as follows:
(1) Subject to rules of court, in proceedings (whenever instituted) before the High Court for the recovery of a debt or damages there may be included in any sum for which judgment is given simple interest, at such rate as the court thinks fit or as rules of court may provide, on all or any part of the debt or damages in respect of which judgment is given, or payment is made before judgment, for all or any part of the period between the date when the cause of action arose and—
(a) in the case of any sum paid before judgment, the date of the payment; and
(b) in the case of the sum for which judgment is given, the date of the judgment.
On the face of that provision the court has a general discretion as to whether to award interest, as well as a discretion as to the rate of interest, whether interest applies to all or part of the debt and damages in respect of which judgment is given and whether interest is given, on the facts of this case, for all or part of the period between the date when the cause of action arose and the date of the judgment.
In the case of damages for personal injury or death the way in which the discretion is to be exercised has been considered in a number of cases, including Jefford v Gee, which are conveniently set out in the White Book 2012 at paragraph 7–022. In the absence of special circumstances the court has to follow binding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elias Neil David And Another v Cheng Sui Chu And Others
...was not argued by either counsel. In McGregor on Damages, it is said that apart from the case of Dobson v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2012] EWHC 986 (TCC) the courts have not awarded interest on the non-pecuniary loss element in torts generally outside the field of personal injury and wrong......