Hyde & Ors v Simple Skips Ltd

In a trespass claim involving unlawful waste deposits, the ordinary measure of loss is restitution in integrum. A claimant may recover the reasonable cost of reasonable reinstatement, even where that exceeds diminution in value, provided the award is objectively fair and proportionate to the benefit conferred. The court must assess the circumstances of the particular case, including the cost and purpose of reinstatement. A wayleave or user-based measure remains available where appropriate. Expert opinion in surveys commissioned for planning purposes may be admissible under the civil evidence legislation where the material was not prepared for the proceedings. Failure to give hearsay notice affects weight rather than admissibility.

The claim concerned waste-recycling operations at Oakfield Farm between 2014 and 2016. The claimants sought damages and unpaid licence fees from Simple Skips Ltd and two individuals in contract and tort, including trespass by unlawful deposit of waste, breach of licence obligations, negligent misstatement concerning asbestos, and losses arising from the condition of the site.

Judgment had previously been entered against the second defendant, with damages to be assessed. The first defendant was deemed to accept factual findings and damages flowing from the third defendant’s case. The principal issues at trial included the quantity of waste deposited, the existence and terms of licences, the appropriate measure of damages for trespass, and the relative responsibility of the individual defendants.

The claimants succeeded in substantial part. The court awarded total damages of £942,620, comprising £605,840 for trespass, £65,580 in unpaid licence fees, £166,200 for clearing the yard and repairing the bays, and £105,000 for lost income. The negligent-misstatement claim failed.

1. Evidence. The court relied principally on regulatory reports, photographs, surveys, waste returns and contemporaneous emails, applying the approach described in Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK) Limited [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm). The topographical surveys were admissible opinion evidence because they had been prepared for planning purposes by professional surveyors, not for the proceedings. Failure to give hearsay notice did not affect admissibility, although it could affect weight.
2. Trespass and damages. The defendants’ deposit of waste on the Mound and Wood Pile B was an unjustified intrusion into land in the claimants’ possession. The governing principle was restitution in integrum, as stated in Dominion Mosaics v Trafalgar Trucking Co Ltd [1990] 2 All ER 246. Under Bryant and Bryant v Macklin and Macklin [2005] EWCA Civ 762, reasonable reinstatement costs could be recovered where objectively fair. The court found the estimated clearing cost proportionate, having regard to planning permission, the Environment Agency’s removal notice and its continuing regulatory involvement.
3. Licences and contractual liability. The evidence established a bays licence and unpaid rent. Under the Yard licence, rent became payable only after the licensor’s specified clearance and permit-transfer obligations had been fulfilled. The defendants breached obligations to keep the premises clean and indemnify the licensor for damage.
4. Misrepresentation. The defendants had not failed to take reasonable care in representing that asbestos was present. The claim for negligent misstatement therefore failed.
5. Responsibility. The second and third defendants shared responsibility for events while both were involved in the business. The second defendant was not responsible for waste deposited after leaving the site in December 2015.

This was a first-instance trial in the High Court. Earlier procedural orders entered judgment against the second defendant and deemed the first defendant to accept findings and damages flowing from the third defendant’s case.