- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ruxley Electronics & Construction Ltd v Forsyth
Factual and Procedural Background
The Respondent engaged the Appellant to construct a swimming pool at the Respondent’s home in The City. The written contract specified a maximum depth of 7 ft 6 in. When completed, the pool’s deepest point measured only about 6 ft 9 in. After discovering the shortfall, the Respondent withheld the final payment and counter-claimed for the cost of demolishing and rebuilding the pool.
The dispute was tried in the Central London County Court before Judge Diamond. The judge found the pool:
- perfectly safe for diving;
- not diminished in market value by the depth shortfall; and
- capable of meeting the contractual depth only by complete demolition and reconstruction at an estimated cost of £21,560, a sum the judge considered “wholly disproportionate.”
Instead of awarding the cost of reconstruction, the judge ordered:
- £2,500 for loss of amenity; and
- £750 for inconvenience.
The Court of Appeal (majority: Judge Staughton and Judge Mann, dissent: Judge Dillon) reversed that decision and awarded the full cost of reinstatement. The Appellant appealed to the House of Lords. On 29 June 1995, a panel comprising Judge Keith, Judge Bridge, Judge Jauncey, Judge Mustill and Judge Lloyd allowed the appeal, restored the County Court judgment, and ordered the Respondent to pay the Appellant’s costs.
Legal Issues Presented
- What is the proper measure of damages for a breach of a building contract that results in a minor departure from specification: the cost of reinstatement, the diminution in value, or some other measure?
- Can damages for “loss of amenity” be awarded in a building-contract context where the economic value of the property is unchanged?
- How do reasonableness and the claimant’s intention to carry out remedial works influence the assessment of damages?
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The pool functions safely and its market value is unchanged; hence the Respondent’s true loss is minimal.
- The cost of reinstatement is unreasonable and should be refused unless (a) the claimant genuinely intends to rebuild and (b) such rebuilding is reasonable.
- An award for loss of amenity is permissible and preferable to a disproportionate reinstatement award.
Respondent's Arguments
- Because the contract expressly required a depth of 7 ft 6 in, the only way to give the Respondent the benefit of the bargain is to award the full cost of reconstruction.
- Reasonableness does not limit damages where reinstatement is the sole method of achieving contractual performance.
- “Loss of amenity” is not a recognised head of damage in building cases; the judge’s £2,500 award was therefore wrong.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Robinson v Harman (1848) | Damages place claimant, so far as money can, in position as if contract performed | Re-affirmed as starting point for analysis |
| British Westinghouse v Underground Electric (1912) | Damages are compensatory, not punitive; duty to mitigate | Cited to show assessment turns on actual pecuniary loss |
| East Ham BC v Bernard Sunley & Sons Ltd (1965) | Cost of reinstatement recoverable when reasonable to insist on it | Used to support trial judge’s emphasis on reasonableness |
| Jacob & Youngs Inc v Kent (1921) | Reinstatement refused where cost grossly disproportionate to benefit | Paralleled present facts; assisted House in rejecting cost-of-cure damages |
| Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) | Reinstatement damages subject to necessity and reasonableness | Adopted to frame the “economic waste” argument |
| Radford v De Froberville (1978) | Reasonableness assessed by reference to claimant’s genuine intentions | Supported focus on Respondent’s lack of real intent to rebuild |
| Tito v Waddell (No 2) (1977) | Claimant cannot recover cost of works he does not intend to perform | Highlighted relevance of intention in measuring loss |
| G W Atkins Ltd v Scott (1980) | Court may award modest sum where reinstatement unreasonable | Relied on to justify award for loss of amenity |
| Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd (1909) | General rule excluding damages for injured feelings | Distinguished; court accepted exception for loss of amenity in pleasure contracts |
| Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd (1973) | Damages for disappointment where contract’s object is enjoyment | Used to validate £2,500 loss-of-amenity award |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The House of Lords undertook a two-step analysis:
- Identification of Actual Loss. The pool was usable, safe, and of undiminished market value. Therefore, the Respondent’s financial loss did not equal the £21,560 cost to demolish and rebuild.
- Reasonableness Test. Drawing on authorities such as East Ham and Bellgrove, the Lords held that cost-of-cure damages are recoverable only when reasonable. Spending £21,560 to gain an extra 9 inches of depth was deemed “wholly disproportionate” to any benefit. The Respondent’s professed intention to rebuild lacked credibility, further undermining the claim.
To avoid leaving the Respondent without compensation, the Lords endorsed the trial judge’s intermediate solution: damages for loss of amenity. They accepted that where a contract is for a pleasurable amenity, the claimant may recover a modest sum reflecting the reduction in enjoyment, notwithstanding the absence of economic loss. This approach, they held, aligns common sense with common law and prevents either over-compensation (full reinstatement) or under-compensation (nominal damages only).
Holding and Implications
HELD: The appeal was allowed. The Court of Appeal’s order was set aside and the judgment of Judge Diamond restored. The Respondent must pay the Appellant’s costs in both the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords; the matter is remitted to the Central London County Court for any further necessary steps consistent with this ruling.
Implications: The decision confirms that:
- Cost-of-cure damages in construction cases are recoverable only when reasonable and proportionate.
- The claimant’s genuine intention to undertake remedial works is a relevant factor in that assessment.
- Courts may award damages for loss of amenity in building contracts where the work provides personal enjoyment and economic loss is negligible.
The judgment refines the law on contractual damages by emphasising proportionality and permitting a middle-ground remedy, thereby influencing future disputes over minor defects in property and consumer contracts.
Alert