Raymond & Anor v Young & Anor

Raymond & Anor v Young & Anor

The Court held that the Recorder was entitled to award damages for diminution in value of the property, as the nuisance was not transitory and the threat to future purchasers persisted despite the injunction. However, the Recorder erred in awarding both £155,000 for capital loss and £20,000 for loss of amenity/distress, as this constituted double recovery. The award was reduced by £20,000 to eliminate double counting. The indemnity costs order was upheld as justified by the defendants' conduct during litigation.

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 Trial Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Nuisance, Harassment, Damages, Diminution in Value, Loss of Amenity, Trespass, Costs
Tort Law Property Law Nuisance Harassment Damages Diminution in Value Loss of Amenity Trespass +1 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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
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 Trial Judgment

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 award of both capital loss and loss of amenity/distress constitutes double recovery
  3. 3 Whether the grant of an injunction precludes an award for diminution in value

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the Recorder was entitled to award damages for diminution in value of the property, as the nuisance was not transitory and the threat to future purchasers persisted despite the injunction. However, the Recorder erred in awarding both £155,000 for capital loss and £20,000 for loss of amenity/distress, as this constituted double recovery. The award was reduced by £20,000 to eliminate double counting. The indemnity costs order was upheld as justified by the defendants' conduct during litigation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part

Orders

  • Damages for diminution in value reduced by £20,000 to eliminate double recovery; total damages adjusted accordingly
  • Awards of £3,500 for trespass and £5,000 aggravated damages upheld