District Judge Tromans looks at claims for the award of damages for distress

The House of Lords held in Addis v Gramophone Co (1909) AC 488 that damages for wrongful dismissal could not include compensation for the humiliation felt by the former employee as a result of the dismissal.

The basis was that contracts normally concerned commercial matters and mental suffering on breach was not contemplated as a risk.

But there had been some movement towards a more relaxed approach.

In Jarvis v Swan's Tours (1973) QB 233, the Court of Appeal established the principle that damages for distress could properly be awarded where there had been a breach of a contract to provide a holiday.

Subsequently, the authorities reverted to a firmer approach.

In Hayes v Dodd [1990] 2 All ER 815 CA, damages for distress could not be recovered from a negligent solicitor even though the result of the negligence was the closing of the client's business.

And in Watts v Morrow [1991] 1 WLR 1421, the Court of Appeal refused to award damages for distress to clients of a negligent surveyor for the inconvenience of living in a house requiring extensive repair.

Lord Justice Bingham (as he then was) put the exception principle in these terms: 'Where the very object of a contract is to provide pleasure, relaxation, peace of mind or freedom from molestation, damages will be awarded if the fruit of the contract is not provided or if the contrary result is produced instead.'

More recently, the House of Lords has returned to the issue, but with differing results.

In Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth (1996) AC 344 - the 'swimming pool case' - and in Farley v Skinner (2002) 2 AC 732, damages for disappointment were considered appropriate.

Whereas in Johnson v Gore Wood & Co (2002) 2 AC I, a majority of the Lords reasserted the Addis principle and struck out a claim for damages for distress.

The latest development is the decision of Mr Justice Neuberger (as he then was) in Hamilton Jones v David & Snape (2004) The Times, 15 January.

Part of the solicitors' retainer in a children case was to protect the peace of mind of the mother by preventing the removal of her children from the country.

The solicitors had failed to renew the notification of the residence order and a prohibited steps order to the Passport Agency and the father was thus able to add the children to his passport and remove them.

Applying Watts and Farley, damages for distress were awarded in the sum of 2,000.

District Judge Tromans sits at Plymouth Combined Court Centre