Loudon v Ryder
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE SINGLETON |
| Judgment Date | 06 February 1953 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1953] EWCA Civ J0206-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 06 February 1953 |
[1953] EWCA Civ J0206-2
LORD JUSTICE SINGLETON,
LORD JUSTICE DENNING, and
LORD JUSTICE HODSON
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL
Counsel for the Appellant: MR GILBERT SEYFUC, Q. C., and MR J. C. LAWRENCE, instructed by Messrs Hardman, Phillips & Mann.
Counsel for the Respondent: MR W.A. FEARNLEY-WHITTINGSTALL, Q. C., and MR C. H. DUVEEN, Instructed by Messrs Adler & Perowne.
This is an appeal against the verdict of a jury and judgment given thereon by Mr Justice Devlin on the 10th October of last year.
The action was brought by one who was at the time the action was commenced Miss Diana Myrna Spencer Lewis. She is married now and her name is Mrs Loudon. She brought her action against the Defendant, Mr Napoleon Ryder, and she claimed damages for trespass and damages for assault and battery. It is a peculiar case; indeed, it might be described as an extraordinary case. I do not know who Mr Ryder is or how he came into contact with the Lewis family. Mr Lewis, the father of the Plaintiff, died in April, 1950, and about a month afterwards, in May, 1950, the Plaintiff became 21 years of age. She has two sisters. Her father, Mr Lewis, had put some property in trust for his daughters, and there were two properties which are, or perhaps I should say which were, intended by the father to be the Plaintiff's properties. One of those is No. 3, Coleherne Mews in Kensington; the other does not come into the picture. The father had told the Plaintiff in his lifetime that those properties were for her, but after his death, and after the girl became 21 years of age, her mother, who was an Executor or a Trustee, did not say anything to the daughters upon the matter; indeed, according to the Plaintiff's evidence, the mother said there was nothing for her. It appears that the family were in fairly affluent circumstances; the mother had a house or flat in Redcliffe Gardens, and a bungalow at Staines, and she was living somewhere else at the time of the trial. There was another property which was called "Shalimar", a bungalow at Staines, where the mother was living at one time. That property was in trust for another daughter, Sheila Maretta. Mrs Lewis, the mother, gave evidence on thetrial and was cross-examined, and she was asked: "When your husband died you were the sole remaining trustee to convey Shalimar to your daughter (A) Yes. (Q) That daughter had to issue a Writ against you, did she not? (A) Yes. (Q) And after she had issued a Writ against you – and she is entitled, is she not, to the freehold of Shalimar – did you sell it to Ryder? (A) Well, it is in dispute at the moment, you know, whether she is entitled to it or not. (Q) Did you sell it to Ryder? (A) I did, yes." The suggestion was made that she had sold it to Mr Ryder, the Defendant, for much less money than it was worth. I do not know whether that is right or not, but at a time when the daughter was just over 21 years of age her mother parted with that property, or sought to do so, and sold it, to the Defendant in this case. The mother was cross-examined further as to moneys which were in Building Societies in the names of the daughters, and it appeared from her evidence that though the money was in the names of the daughters she, the mother, said that that money ought to go to Mr Ryder, the Defendant, because it had been deposited for Mr Ryder's sister who had died in Poland, and Mr Ryder was now taking out, or had taken out, Letters of Administration of the estate of his sister. Why in such circumstances the money should be in the names of Mr and Mrs Lewis's daughters I do not know. That is all I know about Mr Ryder except for the events of the day, the 28th May, 1951, which led to this action.
The flat at No. 3, Coleherne Mews had been let by the mother to Mr Loudon, to whom the Plaintiff is now married. He had left to go to Ireland on business. The Plaintiff and one of her sisters, when they had visited the mother's house, looked in a deed-box. I suppose they had no right to do so, but they did so;and in that deed box there was found the document which showed that the Plaintiff was entitled to the flat No. 3, Coleherne Mews when she became 21 years of age. She took that document out of the deed box and she took it to a solicitor. When Mr Loudon left the flat she herself went to live in it. She said she thought possession was part of the law. She went to live there; she felt she would keep that flat, and she had the document. On the 28th May she received a message which gave her a little concern. The message came in an indirect way; it was from someone who had heard a conversation that they (whoever "they" is) were going to break into the flat. So she took precautions; she put something behind the door of the flat, which is a flat above a garage in the Mews. In the course of the morning there arrived in the Mews her mother, Mrs Lewis, the Defendant, Mr Ryder, and Mrs Lewis's gardener. Mrs Lewis remained in the car. The others, one or both, tried to get into the flat by the door. They could not. Thereupon a ladder was found and was put up against the building so that it reached approximately to the window of the small kitchen of the flat. The gardener went up; when he got part-way up the ladder he looked and he saw the Plaintiff, his mistress's daughter. He was not going to do anything to her; he had some dense of decency at least, and he came down the ladder. Mr Ryder, the Defendant, had different ideas. He went up the ladder. By that time the Plaintiff was prepared to an extent. She had a pail half-full of water, and when Mr Ryder got on the ladder she threw the water down on him, or part of it on him. As a witness said, that did not seem to have any effect. She had not time to get any more water. He advanced up the ladder with a steel or iron instrument, broke one of the small panes of glassclose to the fastening, forced open the window and jumped into the kitchenette. Thereupon there took place something which was described by the Plaintiff – not by Mr Ryder, the Defendant, for he did not give evidence. A witness who was called, a Mr Gardiner, described what he heard from outside, and so did Mrs Lewis, the mother, to some extent, though she does not appear to have recognised her daughter's voice; she said she did not know her daughter was in the flat. Mr Gardiner heard screams and shouting. The Defendant, as far as Mr Gardiner could understand him, was shouting before he went into the flat some such words as "Go out" or "Come out; you have no business here." According to the Plaintiff Mr Ryder, the Defendant, beat her on the shoulders and on the head with his fists. He does not appear to have done any material physical damage to her, but it must have been upsetting for a young woman to be attacked like that by a man who came through the window. She knew Mr Ryder, and she did not like him for reasons which she gave. When he had beaten her he pulled her towards the stairs and dragged her down the stairs by her hair or by her head or body. Meantime Mr Gardiner had gone up the ladder on someone's advice, and finding them on the stairs, he was unable to pass until they got to the bottom of the stairs. He them pushed Mr Ryder from the Plaintiff and he opened the door and they went out. The Plaintiff went the same day to see a doctor, and also to see her solicitor. She had some nervous shock; she was not seriously hurt, though she had had a very unpleasant experience. The doctor was called as a witness. He said there were no marks upon her as far as he could find. She complained of some tenderness on pressure, but apart from the shock there was not much wrong with her.
In those circumstances, she brought her action for damages, and it was tried by a jury, and on such a trial all the issues of fact are to be decided by a jury, and if there is a case proved it is for the jury to assess the damages which should be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.
There were two claims, one for trespass and the other for assault,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rookes v Barnard
...the present case; and I share my noble friend's opinion that your Lordships should now overrule the decision of the C.A. in the case of London v. Ryder [1953] 2 Q.B. 71In all the circumstances I agree that the House should now make an order in the form proposed by my noble and learned frie......
- Abdul Rahim bin Sian v Mesdi bin Warian
-
Williams v Settle
...they know is going to be used in a manner which will be so hurtful and distressing to the people involved. 33 We were referred also to Louden v. Ryder, which was a case with a Jury tried before Mr. Justice Devlin and which came before this court for consideration on damages. That case is re......
- Cheok Chuan Seng and Others; Janaki and Another