Watt v Morrow, 1991 [1991] 1 W.L.R. 1421, EWCA
Citation:Watt v Morrow, 1991 [1991] 1 W.L.R. 1421, EWCA
Rule of thumb:Can loss of enjoyment be claimed as a ground for damages? Yes, where due to a breach of the law a person has not been able to do an activity (activities) that would cause them peace of mind or relaxation then these can be claimed as a ground for damages.
Judgment:
The basic facts of this case were that a property was purchased, and the surveyor’s report had not mentioned £30+k of damage to the property which had to be fixed before it was brought up to standard. The Court held that ‘loss of enjoyment’ was a ground for damages – the purchaser could not relax in their home until the repairs were done and this was a ground for damages. Where a contract has been entered into for enjoyment, relaxation or peace of mind then damages can be claimed for disappointment and distress for it being performed negligently, as well as damages for the diminution in the level of enjoyment/relaxation/peace of mind with these contracts, ‘A contract-breaker is not in general liable for any distress, frustration, anxiety, displeasure, vexation, tension or aggravation which his breach of contract may cause to the innocent party. This rule is not, I think, founded on the assumption that such reactions are not foreseeable, which they surely are or may be, but on considerations of policy. But the rule is not absolute. Where the very object of a contract is to provide pleasure, relaxation, peace of mind or freedom from molestation, damages will be awarded if the fruit of the contract is not provided or if the contrary result is procured instead. If the law did not cater for this exceptional category of case it would be defective. A contract to survey the condition of a house for a prospective purchaser does not, however, fall within this exceptional category. In cases not falling within this exceptional category, damages are in my view recoverable for physical inconvenience and discomfort caused by the breach and mental suffering directly related to that inconvenience and discomfort. If those effects are foreseeably suffered during a period when defects are repaired I am prepared to accept that they sound in damages even though the cost of the repairs is not recoverable as such. But I also agree that awards should be restrained, and that the awards in this case far exceeded a reasonable award for the injury shown to have been suffered. I agree with the figures which Ralph Gibson L.J proposes to substitute’, Lord Bingham at 1445
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.