Damages for trespass and

nuisance during development

Damian Falkowski

Thirty Nine Essex Street

26 November 2013

What constitutes a trespass

bull Trespass to land any unjustifiable intrusion by

one person upon land in the possession of

another

bull ldquoIf the defendant place a part of his foot on the

claimants land unlawfully it is in law as much a

trespass as if he had walked half a mile on itrdquo

bull Ellis v Loftus Iron Co (1874) LR 10 C amp P 10

at 12 per Coleridge CJ

What constitutes a trespass

bull Trespass to land any unjustifiable intrusion by

one person upon land in the possession of

another

bull ldquoIf the defendant place a part of his foot on the

claimants land unlawfully it is in law as much a

trespass as if he had walked half a mile on itrdquo

bull Ellis v Loftus Iron Co (1874) LR 10 C amp P 10

at 12 per Coleridge CJ

What constitutes a trespass

Even trial acts

bull placing rubbish against a neighbourrsquos wall

bull entering land below the surface by mining

or otherwise

bull growing a creeper up his wall

bull propping a ladder against his wall

Trespass to airspace

Crane - Anchor Brewhouse Developments Ltd v Berkley

House (Docklands Developments) Ltd (1987) 2 EGLR

173

bull The boom of developerrsquos crane oversailing Anchorrsquos land

amounted to trespass - injunction granted It is was not

necessary to show damage to obtain an injunction for

trespass Anchor succeeded in obtaining the injunction

they were looking for as the Court found no ldquospecial

circumstancesrdquo to prevent the injunction

Trespass v nuisance

bull Trespass direct injury - nuisance is a consequential

injury

bull Trespass actionable without proof of damage - damage

must be proved for nuisance

Damages where the development has taken place

- the price to the paid by the trespasser

Prima facie measure of damages

bull Compensatory for loss or injury

bull Damages to put injured party in the position had he not

suffered the wrong Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co

(1880) 5 AppCas 25 39

bull Plaintiffrsquos loss ndash not defendantrsquos gain

ldquo[T]he common law pragmatic as ever has long

recognised that there are many commonplace situations

where a strict application of this principle would not do

justice between the partiesrdquo

Attorney-General v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268

bull Trespasser enters plaintiffrsquos land - causes no loss

bull use of anothers land for depositing waste

bull using a path across the land

bull using passages in an underground mine

Damages price a reasonable person would pay for the

right of user

bull Whitwham v Westminster Brymbo Coal and Coke Co

[1896] 2 Ch 538

bull Wayleave cases Martin v Porter (1839) 5 M amp W 351

and Jegon v Vivian (1871) LR 6 ChApp 742

bull Non-removal of a floating dock Penarth Dock

Engineering Co Ltd v Pounds [1963] 1 Lloyds Rep 359

Trespass to airspace

Crane - Anchor Brewhouse Developments Ltd v Berkley

House (Docklands Developments) Ltd (1987) 2 EGLR

173

bull The boom of developerrsquos crane oversailing Anchorrsquos land

amounted to trespass - injunction granted It is was not

necessary to show damage to obtain an injunction for

trespass Anchor succeeded in obtaining the injunction

they were looking for as the Court found no ldquospecial

circumstancesrdquo to prevent the injunction

Trespass v nuisance

bull Trespass direct injury - nuisance is a consequential

injury

bull Trespass actionable without proof of damage - damage

must be proved for nuisance

Damages where the development has taken place

- the price to the paid by the trespasser

Prima facie measure of damages

bull Compensatory for loss or injury

bull Damages to put injured party in the position had he not

suffered the wrong Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co

(1880) 5 AppCas 25 39

bull Plaintiffrsquos loss ndash not defendantrsquos gain

ldquo[T]he common law pragmatic as ever has long

recognised that there are many commonplace situations

where a strict application of this principle would not do

justice between the partiesrdquo

Attorney-General v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268

bull Trespasser enters plaintiffrsquos land - causes no loss

bull use of anothers land for depositing waste

bull using a path across the land

bull using passages in an underground mine

Damages price a reasonable person would pay for the

right of user

bull Whitwham v Westminster Brymbo Coal and Coke Co

[1896] 2 Ch 538

bull Wayleave cases Martin v Porter (1839) 5 M amp W 351

and Jegon v Vivian (1871) LR 6 ChApp 742

bull Non-removal of a floating dock Penarth Dock

Engineering Co Ltd v Pounds [1963] 1 Lloyds Rep 359

Trespass v nuisance

bull Trespass direct injury - nuisance is a consequential

injury

bull Trespass actionable without proof of damage - damage

must be proved for nuisance

Damages where the development has taken place

- the price to the paid by the trespasser

Prima facie measure of damages

bull Compensatory for loss or injury

bull Damages to put injured party in the position had he not

suffered the wrong Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co

(1880) 5 AppCas 25 39

bull Plaintiffrsquos loss ndash not defendantrsquos gain

ldquo[T]he common law pragmatic as ever has long

recognised that there are many commonplace situations

where a strict application of this principle would not do

justice between the partiesrdquo

Attorney-General v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268

bull Trespasser enters plaintiffrsquos land - causes no loss

bull use of anothers land for depositing waste

bull using a path across the land

bull using passages in an underground mine

Damages price a reasonable person would pay for the

right of user

bull Whitwham v Westminster Brymbo Coal and Coke Co

[1896] 2 Ch 538

bull Wayleave cases Martin v Porter (1839) 5 M amp W 351

and Jegon v Vivian (1871) LR 6 ChApp 742

bull Non-removal of a floating dock Penarth Dock

Engineering Co Ltd v Pounds [1963] 1 Lloyds Rep 359

Damages where the development has taken place

- the price to the paid by the trespasser

Prima facie measure of damages

bull Compensatory for loss or injury

bull Damages to put injured party in the position had he not

suffered the wrong Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co

(1880) 5 AppCas 25 39

bull Plaintiffrsquos loss ndash not defendantrsquos gain

ldquo[T]he common law pragmatic as ever has long

recognised that there are many commonplace situations

where a strict application of this principle would not do

justice between the partiesrdquo

Attorney-General v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268

bull Trespasser enters plaintiffrsquos land - causes no loss

bull use of anothers land for depositing waste

bull using a path across the land

bull using passages in an underground mine

Damages price a reasonable person would pay for the

right of user

bull Whitwham v Westminster Brymbo Coal and Coke Co

[1896] 2 Ch 538

bull Wayleave cases Martin v Porter (1839) 5 M amp W 351

and Jegon v Vivian (1871) LR 6 ChApp 742

bull Non-removal of a floating dock Penarth Dock

Engineering Co Ltd v Pounds [1963] 1 Lloyds Rep 359

ldquo[T]he common law pragmatic as ever has long

recognised that there are many commonplace situations

where a strict application of this principle would not do

justice between the partiesrdquo

Attorney-General v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268

bull Trespasser enters plaintiffrsquos land - causes no loss

bull use of anothers land for depositing waste

bull using a path across the land

bull using passages in an underground mine

Damages price a reasonable person would pay for the

right of user

bull Whitwham v Westminster Brymbo Coal and Coke Co

[1896] 2 Ch 538

bull Wayleave cases Martin v Porter (1839) 5 M amp W 351

and Jegon v Vivian (1871) LR 6 ChApp 742

bull Non-removal of a floating dock Penarth Dock

Engineering Co Ltd v Pounds [1963] 1 Lloyds Rep 359

Damages price a reasonable person would pay for the

right of user

bull Whitwham v Westminster Brymbo Coal and Coke Co

[1896] 2 Ch 538

bull Wayleave cases Martin v Porter (1839) 5 M amp W 351

and Jegon v Vivian (1871) LR 6 ChApp 742

bull Non-removal of a floating dock Penarth Dock

Engineering Co Ltd v Pounds [1963] 1 Lloyds Rep 359

Eaton Mansions (Westminster) Ltd v Stinger Compania De

Inversion SA [2013] EWCA Civ 1308

Facts

bull Eaton head lessee of block of mansion flats

bull Stinger owned long leases of two flats

bull Eatonrsquos lease - covenant with Grosvenor Estate not to make

external alterations without consent but air conditioning equipment

already on the roof for the benefit of the tenants of individual flats

(presumably with the consent of the Grosvenor Estate) and Easton

had not charged its tenants for the use of the roof space

bull 1980 Stinger places 3 air con units and pipework and converts two

flats to one unit

bull 1988 6 units in place

bull 2006 Eaton carrying out roof repairs and all tenants told to relocate

units from roof

Trespass by Stinger

June 2007 Two condenser units were placed on the roof

and linked to the chimney flues down Stinger flats by

breaking into the external brickwork of the chimney stack

Units so large required a crane to hoist them into place and

were then still visible from the street (Stinger converting

back to one flat)

bull In breach of planning control

bull Would never have been consented to by the Grosvenor

Estate

The Grosvenor Estate had expressly excluded the

installation of air conditioning from the consent which it

gave in 2006 to the refurbishment work to the flats

Trial on liability finds

bull Stinger installed in flagrant disregard of the need to obtain the

consent of the Grosvenor Estate

bull Eaton would have agreed to same size units as before but not larger

units (no PP and no consent from Grosvenor)

bull February 2008 2007 units (but not pipework) removed

bull December 2008 Negotiations having broken down Stinger

instructed contractors to enter onto roof and connect two new units

to June 2007 condensers - each flat had a functioning air con

system Wyn Williams J considered this high handed and

unreasonable

Application for summary judgment for

damages to be assessed [2010] EWHC

1725 (Ch) Stingers appeal against

judgment on liability dismissed by the Court

of Appeal [2011] EWCA Civ 607

Trespass by Stinger

June 2007 Two condenser units were placed on the roof

and linked to the chimney flues down Stinger flats by

breaking into the external brickwork of the chimney stack

Units so large required a crane to hoist them into place and

were then still visible from the street (Stinger converting

back to one flat)

bull In breach of planning control

bull Would never have been consented to by the Grosvenor

Estate

The Grosvenor Estate had expressly excluded the

installation of air conditioning from the consent which it

gave in 2006 to the refurbishment work to the flats

Trial on liability finds

bull Stinger installed in flagrant disregard of the need to obtain the

consent of the Grosvenor Estate

bull Eaton would have agreed to same size units as before but not larger

units (no PP and no consent from Grosvenor)

bull February 2008 2007 units (but not pipework) removed

bull December 2008 Negotiations having broken down Stinger

instructed contractors to enter onto roof and connect two new units

to June 2007 condensers - each flat had a functioning air con

system Wyn Williams J considered this high handed and

unreasonable

Application for summary judgment for

damages to be assessed [2010] EWHC

1725 (Ch) Stingers appeal against

judgment on liability dismissed by the Court

of Appeal [2011] EWCA Civ 607

The Grosvenor Estate had expressly excluded the

installation of air conditioning from the consent which it

gave in 2006 to the refurbishment work to the flats

Trial on liability finds

bull Stinger installed in flagrant disregard of the need to obtain the

consent of the Grosvenor Estate

bull Eaton would have agreed to same size units as before but not larger

units (no PP and no consent from Grosvenor)

bull February 2008 2007 units (but not pipework) removed

bull December 2008 Negotiations having broken down Stinger

instructed contractors to enter onto roof and connect two new units

to June 2007 condensers - each flat had a functioning air con

system Wyn Williams J considered this high handed and

unreasonable

Application for summary judgment for

damages to be assessed [2010] EWHC

1725 (Ch) Stingers appeal against

judgment on liability dismissed by the Court

of Appeal [2011] EWCA Civ 607

Application for summary judgment for

damages to be assessed [2010] EWHC

1725 (Ch) Stingers appeal against

judgment on liability dismissed by the Court

of Appeal [2011] EWCA Civ 607

Assessment of damages - Negotiating

damages

Key dates and assumptions

bull Refurbishment complete - let for one year

bull Injunction and damages sought

bull Flats sold

bull Rents and sale price not affected by air con

dispute

bull Post 2010 planning permission and Grosvenor

consent for air con

Mr Edward Bartley Jones QC (Sitting as Deputy High Court

Judge) [2012] EWHC 3354 (Ch) assesses

bull pound6000 for trespass

bull pound1716 cost of removing air con apparatus from roof

bull [Costs 1 March 2009 to 19 May 2010 pound614755

estimate to exchange of expert evidence a further

pound201605]

Eatonrsquos appeal(1)

No direct loss from trespass (except pound1716 cost of removal)

But damages should be substantial damages for trespass 6 figures

What Stinger would have agreed to pay at the commencement of the period of

trespass for permission to place the air conditioning equipment on the roof

ie

bull Whether in the hypothetical negotiations for a licence fee the parties are to

be assumed to have been negotiating in respect of the limited period of

trespass up to 11th March 2010 which in fact occurred

or

bull for some more substantial grant of permission unrelated to this finite period

1 - Permission was refused to argue a claim for restitutionary damages in an amount equal to the increase in value of

the flats attributable to use of the roof space Patten LJ

When will the court on the

alternative basisStarting point

Lord Nicholls in Attorney-General v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268

ldquoGeorge Blake is a notorious self-confessed traitorrdquo

Claim concerned unpaid amounts in respect of his book ldquoNo Other Choicerdquo

bull No direct loss suffered by A-G so damages sought on alternative basis for

an account of profits made by the Blake from his breach of confidence

bull Lord Cairnrsquos Act may award damages in lieu of an injunction ndash in practice

gives an equivalent for what was lost by the refusal of an injunction

Mr Edward Bartley Jones QC (Sitting as Deputy High Court

Judge) [2012] EWHC 3354 (Ch) assesses

bull pound6000 for trespass

bull pound1716 cost of removing air con apparatus from roof

bull [Costs 1 March 2009 to 19 May 2010 pound614755

estimate to exchange of expert evidence a further

pound201605]

Eatonrsquos appeal(1)

No direct loss from trespass (except pound1716 cost of removal)

But damages should be substantial damages for trespass 6 figures

What Stinger would have agreed to pay at the commencement of the period of

trespass for permission to place the air conditioning equipment on the roof

ie

bull Whether in the hypothetical negotiations for a licence fee the parties are to

be assumed to have been negotiating in respect of the limited period of

trespass up to 11th March 2010 which in fact occurred

or

bull for some more substantial grant of permission unrelated to this finite period

1 - Permission was refused to argue a claim for restitutionary damages in an amount equal to the increase in value of

the flats attributable to use of the roof space Patten LJ

When will the court on the

alternative basisStarting point

Lord Nicholls in Attorney-General v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268

ldquoGeorge Blake is a notorious self-confessed traitorrdquo

Claim concerned unpaid amounts in respect of his book ldquoNo Other Choicerdquo

bull No direct loss suffered by A-G so damages sought on alternative basis for

an account of profits made by the Blake from his breach of confidence

bull Lord Cairnrsquos Act may award damages in lieu of an injunction ndash in practice

gives an equivalent for what was lost by the refusal of an injunction

Eatonrsquos appeal(1)

No direct loss from trespass (except pound1716 cost of removal)

But damages should be substantial damages for trespass 6 figures

What Stinger would have agreed to pay at the commencement of the period of

trespass for permission to place the air conditioning equipment on the roof

ie

bull Whether in the hypothetical negotiations for a licence fee the parties are to

be assumed to have been negotiating in respect of the limited period of

trespass up to 11th March 2010 which in fact occurred

or

bull for some more substantial grant of permission unrelated to this finite period

1 - Permission was refused to argue a claim for restitutionary damages in an amount equal to the increase in value of

the flats attributable to use of the roof space Patten LJ

When will the court on the

alternative basisStarting point

Lord Nicholls in Attorney-General v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268

ldquoGeorge Blake is a notorious self-confessed traitorrdquo

Claim concerned unpaid amounts in respect of his book ldquoNo Other Choicerdquo

bull No direct loss suffered by A-G so damages sought on alternative basis for

an account of profits made by the Blake from his breach of confidence

bull Lord Cairnrsquos Act may award damages in lieu of an injunction ndash in practice

gives an equivalent for what was lost by the refusal of an injunction

When will the court on the

alternative basisStarting point

Lord Nicholls in Attorney-General v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268

ldquoGeorge Blake is a notorious self-confessed traitorrdquo

Claim concerned unpaid amounts in respect of his book ldquoNo Other Choicerdquo

bull No direct loss suffered by A-G so damages sought on alternative basis for

an account of profits made by the Blake from his breach of confidence

bull Lord Cairnrsquos Act may award damages in lieu of an injunction ndash in practice

gives an equivalent for what was lost by the refusal of an injunction

Sinclair v Gavaghan [2007] EWHC

2256 (Ch)

Distinguished cases where damages in lieu are for

bull Permanent loss (eg loss or restrictive covenant

or boundary dispute)

bull Use of land as access to enable development

bull Wrotham Park Estate Co Ltd v Parkside Homes

Ltd [1974] 1 WLR 798 damages under Lord

Cairnsrsquos Act - 5 of developerrsquos anticipated

profit (restrictive covenant)

Valuation of limited time trespass

bull What are the acts of trespass

bull What were their purpose and effect in relation to the

development and

bull What alternatives did the defendants have to using the

trespass land in order to carry out those works

(Patten LJ in Sinclair)

C contended for pound103000 minimum

Patten LJ awared pound5000 ldquo[defendants] would not have

paid or been asked by any reasonable land owner in the

Claimants position to pay more than a relatively modest

sum for that privilege

Eatonrsquos argument

bull Stinger put up air con units permanently

bull So hypothetical negotiation would have been on that

basis

bull no account is to be taken of post-valuation events eg

Lunn Poly Ltd v Liverpool and Lancashire Properties Ltd

[2006] EWCA Civ 430

Patten LJ rejects this following Pell Frischmann

Engineering Ltd v Bow Valley Iran Ltd [2011] 1 WLR 2370

Appeal dismissed

Conclusions The key is identifying the correct question

Trespass ceased in 2010 and purchasers negotiated their own

permission so

bull Not whether a post-valuation event should be taken into account

(ie something which is assumed to be known to the parties in the

hypothetical negotiations for the licence fee)

bull Real question what is to be taken to be the subject matter of those

negotiations

ndash If Eaton were right Stinger would be required to pay for rights

which their trespass never gave them and for a loss which Eaton

never suffered

bull The valuation construct is that the parties must be treated as having

negotiated for a licence which covered the acts of trespass that

actually occurred The defendant is not required to pay damages for

anything else

Aggravated damages

bull Aggravated damages available when Drsquos conduct has

been highhanded insulting or oppressive see Horsford

v Bird [2006] UKPC 3

bull Needs to be some subjective feelings on the part of the

C which have been injured by Drsquos conduct

bull Messenger Newspapers Group Ltd v National Graphical

Association (1982) [1984] IRLR 397 ndash company awarded

aggravated damages overruled

Thirty Nine Essex Street LLP is a governance and holding entity and a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales (registered number0C360005) with

its registered office at 39 Essex Street London WC2R 3AT Thirty Nine Essex Streets members provide legal and advocacy services as independent self-employed barristers

and no entity connected with Thirty Nine Essex Street provides any legal services Thirty Nine Essex Street (Services) Limited manages the administrative operational and

support functions of Chambers and is a company incorporated in England and Wales (company number 7385894) with its registered office at 39 Essex Street London WC2R 3AT

Valuation of limited time trespass

bull What are the acts of trespass

bull What were their purpose and effect in relation to the

development and

bull What alternatives did the defendants have to using the

trespass land in order to carry out those works

(Patten LJ in Sinclair)

C contended for pound103000 minimum

Patten LJ awared pound5000 ldquo[defendants] would not have

paid or been asked by any reasonable land owner in the

Claimants position to pay more than a relatively modest

sum for that privilege

Eatonrsquos argument

bull Stinger put up air con units permanently

bull So hypothetical negotiation would have been on that

basis

bull no account is to be taken of post-valuation events eg

Lunn Poly Ltd v Liverpool and Lancashire Properties Ltd

[2006] EWCA Civ 430

Patten LJ rejects this following Pell Frischmann

Engineering Ltd v Bow Valley Iran Ltd [2011] 1 WLR 2370

Appeal dismissed

Conclusions The key is identifying the correct question

Trespass ceased in 2010 and purchasers negotiated their own

permission so

bull Not whether a post-valuation event should be taken into account

(ie something which is assumed to be known to the parties in the

hypothetical negotiations for the licence fee)

bull Real question what is to be taken to be the subject matter of those

negotiations

ndash If Eaton were right Stinger would be required to pay for rights

which their trespass never gave them and for a loss which Eaton

never suffered

bull The valuation construct is that the parties must be treated as having

negotiated for a licence which covered the acts of trespass that

actually occurred The defendant is not required to pay damages for

anything else

Aggravated damages

bull Aggravated damages available when Drsquos conduct has

been highhanded insulting or oppressive see Horsford

v Bird [2006] UKPC 3

bull Needs to be some subjective feelings on the part of the

C which have been injured by Drsquos conduct

bull Messenger Newspapers Group Ltd v National Graphical

Association (1982) [1984] IRLR 397 ndash company awarded

aggravated damages overruled

Thirty Nine Essex Street LLP is a governance and holding entity and a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales (registered number0C360005) with

its registered office at 39 Essex Street London WC2R 3AT Thirty Nine Essex Streets members provide legal and advocacy services as independent self-employed barristers

and no entity connected with Thirty Nine Essex Street provides any legal services Thirty Nine Essex Street (Services) Limited manages the administrative operational and

support functions of Chambers and is a company incorporated in England and Wales (company number 7385894) with its registered office at 39 Essex Street London WC2R 3AT

Eatonrsquos argument

bull Stinger put up air con units permanently

bull So hypothetical negotiation would have been on that

basis

bull no account is to be taken of post-valuation events eg

Lunn Poly Ltd v Liverpool and Lancashire Properties Ltd

[2006] EWCA Civ 430

Patten LJ rejects this following Pell Frischmann

Engineering Ltd v Bow Valley Iran Ltd [2011] 1 WLR 2370

Appeal dismissed

Conclusions The key is identifying the correct question

Trespass ceased in 2010 and purchasers negotiated their own

permission so

bull Not whether a post-valuation event should be taken into account

(ie something which is assumed to be known to the parties in the

hypothetical negotiations for the licence fee)

bull Real question what is to be taken to be the subject matter of those

negotiations

ndash If Eaton were right Stinger would be required to pay for rights

which their trespass never gave them and for a loss which Eaton

never suffered

bull The valuation construct is that the parties must be treated as having

negotiated for a licence which covered the acts of trespass that

actually occurred The defendant is not required to pay damages for

anything else

Aggravated damages

bull Aggravated damages available when Drsquos conduct has

been highhanded insulting or oppressive see Horsford

v Bird [2006] UKPC 3

bull Needs to be some subjective feelings on the part of the

C which have been injured by Drsquos conduct

bull Messenger Newspapers Group Ltd v National Graphical

Association (1982) [1984] IRLR 397 ndash company awarded

aggravated damages overruled

Thirty Nine Essex Street LLP is a governance and holding entity and a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales (registered number0C360005) with

its registered office at 39 Essex Street London WC2R 3AT Thirty Nine Essex Streets members provide legal and advocacy services as independent self-employed barristers

and no entity connected with Thirty Nine Essex Street provides any legal services Thirty Nine Essex Street (Services) Limited manages the administrative operational and

support functions of Chambers and is a company incorporated in England and Wales (company number 7385894) with its registered office at 39 Essex Street London WC2R 3AT

Conclusions The key is identifying the correct question

Trespass ceased in 2010 and purchasers negotiated their own

permission so

bull Not whether a post-valuation event should be taken into account

(ie something which is assumed to be known to the parties in the

hypothetical negotiations for the licence fee)

bull Real question what is to be taken to be the subject matter of those

negotiations

ndash If Eaton were right Stinger would be required to pay for rights

which their trespass never gave them and for a loss which Eaton

never suffered

bull The valuation construct is that the parties must be treated as having

negotiated for a licence which covered the acts of trespass that

actually occurred The defendant is not required to pay damages for

anything else

Aggravated damages

bull Aggravated damages available when Drsquos conduct has

been highhanded insulting or oppressive see Horsford

v Bird [2006] UKPC 3

bull Needs to be some subjective feelings on the part of the

C which have been injured by Drsquos conduct

bull Messenger Newspapers Group Ltd v National Graphical

Association (1982) [1984] IRLR 397 ndash company awarded

aggravated damages overruled

Thirty Nine Essex Street LLP is a governance and holding entity and a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales (registered number0C360005) with

its registered office at 39 Essex Street London WC2R 3AT Thirty Nine Essex Streets members provide legal and advocacy services as independent self-employed barristers

and no entity connected with Thirty Nine Essex Street provides any legal services Thirty Nine Essex Street (Services) Limited manages the administrative operational and

support functions of Chambers and is a company incorporated in England and Wales (company number 7385894) with its registered office at 39 Essex Street London WC2R 3AT

Aggravated damages

bull Aggravated damages available when Drsquos conduct has

been highhanded insulting or oppressive see Horsford

v Bird [2006] UKPC 3

bull Needs to be some subjective feelings on the part of the

C which have been injured by Drsquos conduct

bull Messenger Newspapers Group Ltd v National Graphical

Association (1982) [1984] IRLR 397 ndash company awarded

aggravated damages overruled

Thirty Nine Essex Street LLP is a governance and holding entity and a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales (registered number0C360005) with

its registered office at 39 Essex Street London WC2R 3AT Thirty Nine Essex Streets members provide legal and advocacy services as independent self-employed barristers

and no entity connected with Thirty Nine Essex Street provides any legal services Thirty Nine Essex Street (Services) Limited manages the administrative operational and

support functions of Chambers and is a company incorporated in England and Wales (company number 7385894) with its registered office at 39 Essex Street London WC2R 3AT

Thirty Nine Essex Street LLP is a governance and holding entity and a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales (registered number0C360005) with

its registered office at 39 Essex Street London WC2R 3AT Thirty Nine Essex Streets members provide legal and advocacy services as independent self-employed barristers

and no entity connected with Thirty Nine Essex Street provides any legal services Thirty Nine Essex Street (Services) Limited manages the administrative operational and

support functions of Chambers and is a company incorporated in England and Wales (company number 7385894) with its registered office at 39 Essex Street London WC2R 3AT