Jones & Anor v Ruth & Anor

Jones & Anor v Ruth & Anor

Foreseeability is not a requirement for recovery of damages for personal injury under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997; once harassment is established and causation is proved, damages for injury and loss are recoverable. The judge erred in excluding such damages for lack of foreseeability. Damages for trespass should reflect a reasonable licence fee, not the full increase in value. Costs were properly awarded to the claimants given the defendants' conduct and the main issues on which the claimants succeeded.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Ms Samantha Jones; Appellant/claimant: Ms Rachel Lovegrove; Respondent/defendant: Mr Liam Patrick Ruth; Respondent/defendant: Mrs Karen Lesley Patricia Ruth
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Technology and Construction Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal allowed in part; damages and costs orders varied.
Legal Topics
Nuisance, Trespass, Harassment, Damages, Costs
Tort Law Property Law Civil Procedure Nuisance Trespass Harassment Damages Costs

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Samantha Jones

Appellant/claimant

Ms Rachel Lovegrove

Appellant/claimant

Mr Liam Patrick Ruth

Respondent/defendant

Mrs Karen Lesley Patricia Ruth

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Technology and Construction Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether damages for personal injury are recoverable for harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 without proof of foreseeability
  2. 2 Appropriate measure of damages for trespass and nuisance
  3. 3 Entitlement to costs given the conduct of the parties and outcome

Ratio Decidendi

Foreseeability is not a requirement for recovery of damages for personal injury under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997; once harassment is established and causation is proved, damages for injury and loss are recoverable. The judge erred in excluding such damages for lack of foreseeability. Damages for trespass should reflect a reasonable licence fee, not the full increase in value. Costs were properly awarded to the claimants given the defendants' conduct and the main issues on which the claimants succeeded.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal allowed in part; damages and costs orders varied.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay Ms Jones £28,750 and £115,000 by way of damages for personal injury, with interest at 2% per annum from the date of issue of proceedings until the date of order.
  • Any further claims by Ms Jones for medical expenses and future loss of earnings remitted to a Master of the Queen’s Bench Division for inquiry.