Raymond & Anor v Young & Anor [2015] EWCA Civ 456 (14 May 2015)

Raymond & Anor v Young & Anor [2015] EWCA Civ 456 (14 May 2015)

The Recorder was entitled to award damages for diminution in value of the property as the nuisance and harassment were not transitory and would continue to affect the property's value despite the injunction. However, awarding both £155,000 for capital loss and £20,000 for loss of amenity/distress constituted double recovery, as these are alternative measures of the same loss. The damages should be reduced by £20,000 to eliminate double counting. The award of indemnity costs was justified due to the defendants' conduct during litigation.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 456
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Peter James Raymond; Claimant/respondent: Lesley Raymond; Defendant/appellant: Steven Frederick Young; Defendant/appellant: Fiona Young
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Carlisle County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; damages reduced by £20,000; appeal against costs dismissed.
Legal Topics
Nuisance, Harassment, Trespass, Damages, Diminution in Value, Loss of Amenity, Costs, Injunctions
Tort Law Property Law Civil Procedure Nuisance Harassment Trespass Damages Diminution in Value +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter James Raymond

Claimant/respondent

Lesley Raymond

Claimant/respondent

Steven Frederick Young

Defendant/appellant

Fiona Young

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Carlisle County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether damages for diminution in value of property can be awarded in addition to damages for loss of amenity and distress in nuisance and harassment claims
  2. 2 Whether the grant of an injunction precludes an award for diminution in value
  3. 3 Whether double recovery occurred by awarding both capital loss and loss of amenity/distress damages

Ratio Decidendi

The Recorder was entitled to award damages for diminution in value of the property as the nuisance and harassment were not transitory and would continue to affect the property's value despite the injunction. However, awarding both £155,000 for capital loss and £20,000 for loss of amenity/distress constituted double recovery, as these are alternative measures of the same loss. The damages should be reduced by £20,000 to eliminate double counting. The award of indemnity costs was justified due to the defendants' conduct during litigation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; damages reduced by £20,000; appeal against costs dismissed.

Orders

  • Damages for diminution in value reduced from £175,000 to £155,000 by eliminating £20,000 for double recovery.
  • Awards of £3,500 for trespass and £5,000 aggravated damages remain unaffected.