The Court of Appeal has ruled that in order to recover damages for personal injury all a claimant for damages for anxiety and distress arising from the negligent conduct of building works needs to prove is that the injury was the foreseeable result of the intrusive works. All that was necessary to prove was that the conduct of building works amounted to harassment and that the injury was a natural result of that ­conduct.

The case of Jones and Lovegrove v Ruth and Ruth demonstrates the need for builders to take considerable care before going ahead with residential developments without serving the requisite party wall act notices or obtaining the consents of neighbours.

A failure to serve a party wall act notice may well result in the builder becoming liable for any damage to adjoining property and, if he carries out the works in an inconsiderate fashion, he may well be liable for a substantial claim for damages for nuisance and harassment - particularly where his inconsiderate actions cause anxiety and distress to neighbouring occupiers amounting to physical or psychiatric injury.

Jones provides a salutary lesson to builders who press ahead with building developments without consideration of the planning rules and the wellbeing of their neighbours and shows that the consequences of running roughshod over the feelings of the local community can be extremely costly.

Inconsiderate conduct

The case also clarifies the test for damages resulting from the negligent conduct of building works amounting to the harassment of neighbouring residents where that conduct results in distress and personal injury. The Court of Appeal ruled that, provided the inconsiderate conduct of building works was deliberate and caused personal injury, it was not necessary for those injuries to have been foreseeable.

In this case, a builder purchased a house in Northampton for refurbishment as a home for his family. He added an additional floor, building onto the house next door as well as the rear extension at the back. The works included gutting the whole of the interior, knocking out internal walls and the insertion of rolled steel joists, and building a garage at the back.

No proper building act notice was served and, apart from being aware of a vague proposal to build onto the rear extension, the neighbours were not given any details of the proposed redevelopment. They realised that the works were going ahead only when scaffolding was erected at the front and rear of the property, partially ­trespassing over their land.

Despite the lack of permission from the neighbours or the service of notices, the builder pressed ahead with the work, inserting purlins into the neighbours’ gable end wall and attaching the new roof to their property. The works were carried out carelessly, dislodging bricks and damaging the adjoining roof.

Part of the parapet wall between the two properties was removed and replaced in blockwork causing further damage to the adjoining roof, which began leaking. Repairs by the builder were carried out under protest and were ineffective.

As a result of the removal of internal walls and the vibration caused by the works, the cross walls in the next door property dropped, causing extensive cracking. The builder denied all responsibility and claimed that the cracking had occurred spontaneously.

The building works were carried out sporadically over a four-year period largely between other jobs and including weekends and evenings. The use of power tools caused vibration and noise and there was generalised banging from the works. The workmen frequently played radios in the house and garden, creating further noise and disturbance.

The builder failed to keep the neighbours informed of his plans and the works caused a considerable disruption to their lives over a lengthy period of time, spoiling their enjoyment of the property. The court found that the protracted and spasmodic nature of the works amounted to a nuisance.

Whenever the neighbours raised concerns, the builder and his wife reacted with hostility but failed to modify the programme of works or provide a timetable for the works. At one stage, a number of abusive notes were thrown into the house and garden of the builder’s neighbours.

The trial judge found that the building works carried out over a number of years, the use of radios by the builders and the refusal to enter any constructive discussions with the neighbours amounted to a nuisance, and the conduct of the builder and his wife constituted harassment. The building of an additional floor annexed to the neighbouring property amounted to trespass.

In addition to creating noxious fumes by burning rubbish in the garden, the builder demolished part of the neighbours’ garden wall to allow him easier access to build the garage, and used the rear garden for the storage of scaffolding and building materials over a protracted period of time.

Psychological injury

As a result of the prolonged works and the refusal to address and recognise their complaints, one of the neighbours suffered considerable distress and psychological injury resulting in her being unable to continue working. Doctors anticipated that she would not recover sufficiently to resume work until at least six months after the ­conclusion of the litigation and that she would need counselling and possible retraining before she could get another job.

The defendants argued that they should not be liable for her injury or consequential loss of earnings, as it was not foreseeable that she would suffer injury as a result of their activities. The trial judge upheld that argument at first instance. However, the Court of Appeal held that forseeability of injury was not the correct test for damages arising out of harassment. All that was needed was to show that the act was deliberate and that personal injury was the consequence of that behaviour.

The following award was made by the trial judge: £30,000 for nuisance, £6,000 damages for distress caused by the harassment, £15,450 for costs of repairs and making good, and £45,000 for trespass.

The Court of Appeal gave an award of £28,750 for general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity with a further award of £115,000 loss of earnings, together with interest of around £15,000. The court referred the issue of losses from the date of trial and other claimed expenses to a master for further hearing. The award for trespass was reduced to £15,000.

The net bill as a result of the blatant disregard of the rules by the builder will almost certainly exceed £250,000. The costs are likely to be even greater. The value of each of the houses is less than £200,000.

The case underlines the need for builders to use the services of a party wall surveyor and to serve the requisite notices on the owners of adjoining properties before embarking on wholesale refurbishment and redevelopment, if they want to avoid the danger of being found responsible for damage to adjoining properties.

It acts as a warning that they will be liable for the consequences of failing to act with consideration for the wellbeing of adjoining occupiers and that a failure to conduct building works in a reasonable fashion may make them liable for damages for nuisance as well as damages for distress, anxiety and/or personal injury arising from harassment.

Philip Noble is a barrister practising at Thomas More Chambers, Lincoln’s Inn. He represented both claimants in Jones