000			01976cam a2200241 4500
001			ABS64727
008			011030n2001 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u115386
245			_aFarley v Skinner
260			_c2001
490			_aWeekly Law Reports _v[2001] 3 WLR 899-932(34)
520			_aHL 11 October 2001. Claimant purchaser F engaged chartered surveyor S to investigate whether the property in Blackboys,Sussex which he intended to purchase would be affected by aircraft noise, with clear instructions that he did not wish to purchase a property which was on a flight path. On receiving S's report which stated that it was unlikely that the property would be affected by aircraft noise but noted that some planes would cross the area depending upon the direction of the wind and the position of the flight path, F proceeded with the purchase. After moving into the property F found that it was affected by aircraft noise. The HC dismissed F's claim for damages for diminution in value but awarded £10,000 non-pecuniary damages for the distress and inconvenience applying "Watts v Morrow" 1991. CA set aside the award on the grounds that the circumstances of the case did not fall within the exceptions for the award of damages for where there is no physical discomfort or inconvenience. HL held that F was entitled to recover non-pecuniary damages from S for distress and inconvenience and reinstated the #10,000 award set by the HC. Appeal allowed. CA decision reversed. Full copy of HL judgement available on http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011011/farley-1.htm
590			_aABS
650			_aFARLEY V SKINNER
650			_aAIRCRAFT NOISE
650			_aWATTS V MORROW
650			_aDAMAGES
650			_aINCONVENIENCE
650			_aNEGLIGENCE
650			_aCASE LAW
856			_uhttps://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011011/farley-1.htm
942			_n0
999			_c68709 _d68709