Raymond v Young [2015] EWCA Civ 456; [2015] PLSCS 151 concerned acts of harassment, trespass and nuisance, which occurred over a period of almost 40 years. The county court judge found that the Mr Young had embarked upon a programme of continuous acts of harassment, trespass and nuisance in a campaign of “truculence and belligerence” borne out of resentment that the neighbouring property had been sold out of the family.
The judge said that Mr Young had intended to make his neighbours’ lives a misery. He rejected the suggestion that there would be no diminution in the value of their property if he were to grant injunctive relief, which he did, to prevent further nuisance and harassment in the future, and awarded Mr and Mrs Raymond £155,000 for the diminution in the value of their property and £20,000 for loss of amenity, distress and inconvenience. Mr Young appealed against the decision.
The Court of Appeal referred in particular to Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655; [1995] EGCS 153, in which the House of Lords reaffirmed that claims in private nuisance are claims for injury to a proprietary interest in land, even where the nuisance – such as smells, air pollution or noise – causes no physical damage to the claimant’s land itself. It might be true that the land has not suffered any “sensible” injury. However, its utility will have been diminished by the existence of the nuisance, and it is for the diminution in such utility that the claimant is entitled to compensation.
The injury to the land lies in the fact that the owners or occupiers are liable to suffer inconvenience, annoyance or illness – and damages for the diminution in its value are awarded to reflect that. They may be affected by the size, commodiousness and value of the property, but cannot be increased by reference to the number of owners or occupiers. The damages for the diminution in value must be divided between them.
The Raymonds had tried to sell their property in the recent past and, absent evidence to the contrary, there was a realistic possibility of a sale in the foreseeable future. The existence of disputes with neighbours must be disclosed in replies to standard pre-contract enquiries on any sale by private treaty – and the award of £155,000 for the diminution in the value of the property, calculated on the basis that future purchasers might also be subjected to similar treatment, was one that the county court judge had been entitled to make.
Mr Young’s behaviour had not been transitory and potential purchasers would not regard the county court injunction as a guarantee that they would escape such treatment. The benefit of the injunction was personal to the Raymonds and an incoming purchaser would have to issue fresh proceedings if there was any repetition of the same sort of conduct, with all the cost and trouble that that would involve.
However, damages for loss of amenity value and for diminution in value are alternatives. Therefore, the county court judge had been wrong to make separate awards to cover both and the Court of Appeal reduced the award by £20,000 to eliminate the element of double recovery in the original award.
Allyson Colby is a property law consultant
