Glen Haysman v Mrs Rogers Films Ltd

Damages for breach of a contract concerning the use of a private home may include non-pecuniary loss where an important object of the bargain was to provide the owner with peace of mind. Distress, upset and inconvenience must remain proportionate, with awards restrained and modest. Reasonable repair costs are recoverable without a betterment deduction where the property was previously in good repair and the work restores its serviceable condition. Time spent dealing with damage may constitute distinct consequential financial loss, although the claimant must establish that loss occurred and must mitigate it. A claimed precaution is recoverable only where it is reasonable, necessary and foreseeable. Loss of a chance fails where the evidence shows that the claimant’s own decision, rather than the breach, caused the lost opportunity.

The claimant’s home was used by the defendant film production company as a filming location under a written agreement. The defendant admitted breach and damage to the property. The issues concerned the recoverability and amount of losses for driveway repairs, non-pecuniary loss, time spent dealing with the damage, security during remedial works and an alleged lost opportunity to enter further location agreements.

The court also considered the scope of the contractual restoration obligation and whether VAT, betterment, distress, inconvenience, lost earnings, security costs and loss of chance were recoverable consequences of the breach.

1. Contractual scope. Clause 4.1 concerned agreed temporary modifications and did not impose a general obligation to restore the property. The admitted breach arose under the indemnity in clause 6.1.
2. Repair costs. The reasonable remedial scheme was resurfacing the whole driveway. VAT was recoverable because the revised estimate showed that VAT was payable and the claimant could not require the contractor to undertake the work for the original VAT-exclusive figure. No betterment deduction was appropriate. The driveway had previously been in good repair, and the work restored it to its former serviceable condition.
3. Non-pecuniary loss. The agreement was not an ordinary commercial contract. Given the nature of the claimant’s home, its distinctive condition and the contractual provisions addressing reinstatement and indemnity, providing peace of mind was an important object of the bargain. Anxiety, upset and interference with enjoyment of the property were foreseeable. Applying the approach in Watts v Morrow [1991] 1 WLR 1421 and Farley v Skinner [2002] 2 AC 732, damages had to remain restrained and modest. £1,000 was appropriate.
4. Time and earnings. Time spent dealing with the consequences of the breach was distinct from non-pecuniary loss and was within the parties’ contemplation. Difficulty of assessment did not prevent recovery where loss was established, following Simpson v London and North Western & Rly Co (1876) 1 QBD 274. Allowing for mitigation and the absence of evidence of specific lost work, six of the claimed eleven and a half days were treated as lost, producing an award of £3,229.20.
5. Other heads of loss. Security costs were neither necessary nor reasonable, and were not foreseeable. The loss-of-chance claim failed because the claimant had withdrawn his home from promotion; his own decision, rather than the defendant’s breach, caused the absence of further location agreements.
6. Disposition. Judgment was entered for the claimant for £78,941.70 exclusive of interest, subject to further submissions on interest.