Bryant v Sweet Lavender - Case Papers PDF

Preview

Summary

Case paper...

Description

BRYANT-03-1819-CP

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No. EYJ1091

BETWEEN MR ARNOLD BRYANT

Claimant

and SWEET AND LAVENDER LIMITED

Defendants

_______________________________________ INSTRUCTIONS TO COUNSEL TO DRAFT DEFENCE _______________________________________

Counsel is instructed on behalf of the Defendants in this claim and will gather the facts from the enclosed Particulars of Claim and the proofs of evidence (which will be converted into witness statements in due course) of Jack Sweet and James O’Connor. It seems to Instructing Solicitors that this is an unmeritorious claim which can be defended on the grounds that the Defendants were not negligent, that there was no causation and that in any event the damage was not reasonably foreseeable. Although it is not entirely clear what caused the fire, it seems likely to have been the fault either of Mr Bryant himself or his children. Although we are instructed that Mr Bryant made several long telephone calls to Mr Sweet in the weeks following the incident, haranguing him incoherently about the damage caused, it appears that the clients had received no formal correspondence relating to a contemplated claim nor had recent contact with Mr Bryant, so that service of the Claim Form and Particulars this week came as a complete surprise, and all the more so as it appears that Mr Bryant is professionally represented. Counsel is requested to settle a Defence accordingly. Dated 30th January 2019

Jacques & Watts 10 Broadway Eshton Somerset Solicitors for the Defendants

1 © City, University of London, 2018

BRYANT-03-1819-CP

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No. EYJ1091

BETWEEN MR ARNOLD BRYANT

Claimant

and SWEET AND LAVENDER LIMITED

Defendants

__________________________________ PARTICULARS OF CLAIM __________________________________ 1.

The Claimant is the owner and occupier of premises known as 16 Evelyn Road, Yeovil, Somerset (“No. 16”). The Defendants are building contractors who were at all material times engaged in works of construction, demolition and repair at the adjoining premises known as 14 Evelyn Road (“No. 14”).

2.

The Claimant is a biochemist and maintains a laboratory in a shed in the garden of No. 16 where he conducts experiments. In May 2018 the Claimant set up apparatus in the shed in order to conduct an experiment which required a temperature of at least 20C and, accordingly, he kept a paraffin burner alight in the shed. The apparatus was of necessity delicately poised and liable to be unbalanced by excessive vibration.

3.

On 4 May 2018 the Claimant informed Jack Sweet, a director of the Defendants, of the facts stated in paragraph 2 above, and showed him the apparatus.

4.

On 16 May 2018 the Defendants began to use a pneumatic drill in the garden of No. 14. They were warned to stop by the Claimant’s wife but continued to use it. The vibrations produced by the drill caused the apparatus and/or the paraffin burner to become unbalanced and collapse, which resulted in a fire in the shed.

5.

The matters complained of were caused by the negligence of the Defendants, their employees or agents. PARTICULARS OF NEGLIGENCE The Defendants, their employees or agents were negligent in that they: (a)

used a pneumatic drill when they knew or ought to have known that the vibrations produced were likely to cause damage to the Claimant’s property;

(b)

failed to heed the warning given by the Claimant as to the need to avoid vibration;

(c)

failed to heed the warning given by the Claimant’s wife;

(d)

failed to take any or any adequate precautions to prevent vibrations reaching the Claimant’s shed, by digging a trench or otherwise;

(e)

failed to give notice to the Claimant that they were going to use a pneumatic drill. 2 © City, University of London, 2018

BRYANT-03-1819-CP

6.

Further or alternatively, the Defendants’ use of the pneumatic drill constituted a nuisance in that it caused physical damage to No 16 by vibrations.

7.

As a result of the matters set out above, the Claimant’s shed and its contents were severely burned, the Claimant’s experiment was ruined, the Claimant’s funding to carry out research was suspended and the Claimant has suffered loss and damage. PARTICULARS OF SPECIAL DAMAGE (a)

Shed damaged beyond repair

£

3,750.00

(b)

Furniture and fittings destroyed by fire

£

1,475.00

(c)

Cost of restoring ground and replacing fence

£

2,550.00

(d)

Scientific apparatus and chemicals broken or destroyed

£

1,840.00

Loss of research support grant from Branksome Chine Trust

£

3,250.00 __________

£

12,865.00

(e)

8.

Further the Claimant claims interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 on the sum of £12,865.00 at the rate of 8% per annum from 16 May 2018 amounting to £733.13 at 30 January 2019 and continuing at the rate of £2.82 per day until judgment or sooner payment.

AND the Claimant claims: (1)

Damages in the sum of £12,865.00;

(2)

Interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% from 16 May 2018 amounting to £733.13 at 30 January 2019 and continuing at the rate of £2.82 per day until judgment or sooner payment. WILLIAM BLACKSTONE

STATEMENT OF TRUTH The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true I am duly authorised by the Claimant to sign this statement Full name: David Thorne Name of Claimant’s solicitor’s firm: Meacham and Co Signed:

David Thorne

(Claimant’s Solicitor)

Dated 30th January 2019

3 © City, University of London, 2018

BRYANT-03-1819-CP

JACK SWEET of 6 Blagdon Lane, Yeovil, Somerset will say:

I am a director of the Defendants. In April 2018 our company was engaged by Mr Bernard Tripper to carry out various building works at No. 14 Evelyn Road, which he had recently purchased. Most of the work was internal and needed to be completed before he could move in. We commenced work on 2 May 2018. On 4 May, when I was visiting the premises, I was accosted by Mr Bryant, who lives at No. 16 and who wished to make a complaint. He took me into his garden and pointed out that my men had leant some scaffolding poles against the thin wooden fence which divided the gardens of Nos. 14 and 16, so that they overhung his garden. At the end of his garden, only a few inches from the fence, stood a wooden shed. He told me that if anyone knocked the scaffolding poles they might strike his shed. This appeared to be correct. He told me that he was a scientist conducting vital experiments in his shed which required the use of scientific apparatus and a paraffin burner. He insisted on taking me inside his shed. There I saw a mass of apparatus which I did not understand. I noticed a small lighted paraffin burner perched on the corner of a rickety table just inside the door. I could certainly appreciate that there might be some danger if something struck the shed, but at no point did Mr Bryant mention vibration or any other form of interference. I formed the impression that Mr Bryant was an enthusiastic amateur, rather than a professional scientist. I apologised for the presence of the scaffolding and instructed Jim O’Connor, the foreman on the premises, to remove it and to take care not to knock the shed. By 16 May we had finished the work inside the house and the last remaining job was to take up a solid slab of concrete which had been laid over most of the garden. It was several inches thick and it could only be broken up by pneumatic drill. Although I was aware that the noise would be a disturbance, it never occurred to me to consider the effects of vibration. In any event I consider it most improbable that the vibrations could have caused anything in Mr Bryant’s shed to topple over. The concrete slab did not touch any part of his shed, fence or garden and it was laid on top of clay soil which would have absorbed most of the vibrations before they reached his shed. I was not present at the time of the fire, but I do not believe that it was caused by anything done by my employees. Even if it was, there was no way we could have foreseen or prevented it. There was no space to dig any trench between the edge of the concrete slab and the fence. I believe the fire was Mr Bryant’s own fault, resulting from the dangerous way he set up the apparatus and the burner.

4 © City, University of London, 2018

BRYANT-03-1819-CP

JAMES O’CONNOR of 81 North Street, Yeovil, Somerset will say:

I am employed as a foreman builder by Sweet and Lavender Ltd. In May 2018 I was working with 2 others at No. 14 Evelyn Road. Over the 2 or 3 weeks we were there I came to recognise the people living at No. 16, Mr Bryant, his wife and 2 children, aged about 6 and 7. The children were frequently playing in the garden and on several occasions I saw them go into the shed, which did not appear to be locked. I remember Jack Sweet asking me on 4 May to remove some scaffolding poles which were leaning against the fence and to take care not to knock Mr Bryant’s shed because he had some stuff in there that looked like something out of the Frankenstein film. On 16 May we brought in a pneumatic drill to break up the concrete slab in the garden. The drill was being operated by Steve Wyman. We started to drill at about 3.30 pm. After about 10 minutes Mrs Bryant came to the fence and asked us to stop because of the noise. I apologised but said there was nothing I could do about it, and we’d only be using it for about an hour. I then instructed Steve to carry on. I noticed that the Bryant children were playing in the garden and that they were running around the shed. About 15 minutes later, when Steve stopped drilling for a moment, I heard the children screaming and noticed that the shed was on fire. I yelled for Mrs Bryant, who called the Fire Brigade. I noticed that the door of the shed was slightly open. I do not believe that it was anything we did that caused the fire. I believe that Mr Bryant’s children must have gone into the shed and done something to set it alight.

5 © City, University of London, 2018...