Snell -v- Beadle 16-Nov-2006 [2006] JCA 164 (16 November 2006)

Snell -v- Beadle 16-Nov-2006 [2006] JCA 164 (16 November 2006)

Damages for breach of contract should include both capital value and lost income if plaintiff intended to retain and let property, and defendant knew of such intention; market value alone does not compensate for lost income. Where loss depends on third-party actions, a discount reflecting uncertainty is justified. The Royal Court erred by excluding lost income; 25% discount for loss of chance is appropriate. Compound interest is not allowed; simple interest applies. Tax treatment of lost rental income must be determined by the Royal Court.

Citation
[2006] JCA 164
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Anthony John Snell; First Defendant/respondent: Advocate Charles Malcolm Bedford Thacker (as executor of the Moveable Estate of the late Mrs Margaret Beadle); Second Defendant/respondent: Alan Joseph Beadle; Second Defendant/respondent: John Charles Beadle
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
16 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Damages Assessment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; damages recalculated.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Measure of Damages, Remoteness, Mitigation, Loss of Chance, Compensation for Lost Income, Right of Way, Development of Property
Contract Law Property Law Damages Breach of Contract Measure of Damages Remoteness Mitigation Loss of Chance +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 20
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony John Snell

Plaintiff/appellant

Advocate Charles Malcolm Bedford Thacker (as executor of the Moveable Estate of the late Mrs Margaret Beadle)

First Defendant/respondent

Alan Joseph Beadle

Second Defendant/respondent

John Charles Beadle

Second Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Damages Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper measure of damages for breach of contract involving lost opportunity to develop property
  2. 2 Whether damages should include lost income and rental value beyond market value
  3. 3 Appropriate discount for loss of chance

Ratio Decidendi

Damages for breach of contract should include both capital value and lost income if plaintiff intended to retain and let property, and defendant knew of such intention; market value alone does not compensate for lost income. Where loss depends on third-party actions, a discount reflecting uncertainty is justified. The Royal Court erred by excluding lost income; 25% discount for loss of chance is appropriate. Compound interest is not allowed; simple interest applies. Tax treatment of lost rental income must be determined by the Royal Court.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; damages recalculated.

Orders

  • Case remitted to Royal Court to determine taxability of lost rental income and adjust award accordingly.
  • Defendants ordered to pay plaintiff 75% of recalculated damages, with simple interest at court rate from 20 February 2006 until payment.