Attia v British Gas Corporation [1987] EWCA Civ 8 (26 June 1987)

Attia v British Gas Corporation [1987] EWCA Civ 8 (26 June 1987)

A claim for damages for psychiatric illness caused by witnessing the destruction of one's property due to another's negligence is not precluded as a matter of law or policy; if such injury is a recognisable psychiatric illness and is reasonably foreseeable, recovery is in principle possible. Whether the injury was reasonably foreseeable is a question of fact to be determined at trial.

Citation
[1987] EWCA Civ 8
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Madiha Attia; Respondent (defendant): British Gas Corporation
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 June 1987
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Preliminary Issue Determination in Queen's Bench Division
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Psychiatric Injury, Nervous Shock, Remoteness of Damage, Duty of Care, Foreseeability, Public Policy
Tort Law Negligence Psychiatric Injury Nervous Shock Remoteness of Damage Duty of Care Foreseeability Public Policy

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Madiha Attia

Appellant (plaintiff)

British Gas Corporation

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Preliminary Issue Determination in Queen's Bench Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether damages for psychiatric illness (nervous shock) are recoverable when caused by witnessing destruction of property due to defendant's negligence, absent physical injury to any person.
  2. 2 Whether such psychiatric injury was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant.
  3. 3 Whether public policy precludes recovery for psychiatric injury in the absence of personal injury.

Ratio Decidendi

A claim for damages for psychiatric illness caused by witnessing the destruction of one's property due to another's negligence is not precluded as a matter of law or policy; if such injury is a recognisable psychiatric illness and is reasonably foreseeable, recovery is in principle possible. Whether the injury was reasonably foreseeable is a question of fact to be determined at trial.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of deputy judge set aside.
  • Case remitted for trial on all live issues including foreseeability, causation, and damage.