Attia v British Gas plc [1988] QB 304 (CA)

Facts

• The claimant engaged British Gas to install a new central heating system in her home.
• After installation, a fire broke out in the loft, causing extensive damage to the house and its contents.
• The claimant directly witnessed the destruction of her property.
• British Gas accepted liability for the property damage and settled that component of the claim.
• The claimant advanced an additional claim for damages for recognised psychiatric harm (‘nervous shock’) suffered as a result of witnessing the destruction.
• The initial court found against the claimant on this psychiatric harm element; she appealed.

Issues

1. Whether it was reasonably foreseeable that British Gas's actions could result in a fire causing property damage.
2. Whether damages for recognised psychiatric harm are recoverable when such harm arises solely from witnessing destruction of property, rather than from personal injury.
3. Whether policy considerations justify restricting recovery for psychiatric harm to cases involving personal injury.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the claimant, holding that damages for recognised psychiatric harm could be recovered when such harm results from witnessing destruction of property due to another’s negligence.
• The Court found no justification in law or policy for restricting recovery of such damages to cases involving personal injury.
• The argument that permitting such claims would open the “floodgates” to numerous unfounded claims was rejected by the Court.
• The case was remitted for trial to determine whether the fire (and resulting psychiatric harm) was a foreseeable consequence of British Gas’s breach.

Legal Principles

• Damages for recognised psychiatric harm in negligence are not limited to cases involving personal injury; witnessing destruction of one's property due to negligence may suffice if psychiatric injury is reasonably foreseeable.
• The requirements for liability in negligence include duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and the foreseeability of the specific type of harm suffered.
• The reasonable foreseeability test is central to determining liability for psychiatric harm, regardless of whether the primary harm was personal or property based.
• Policy concerns regarding a surge of unfounded claims do not justify denial of otherwise legitimate claims for psychiatric harm.

Conclusion

Attia v British Gas plc [1988] QB 304 (CA) establishes that recovery for recognised psychiatric harm caused by witnessing negligent destruction of one’s property is possible, provided such harm is reasonably foreseeable; personal injury need not be present for such liability to arise.