Mr and Mrs Ruth owned two two-storey houses in a terrace at 101 and 103 Lower Thrift Street, Nottingham, each of which they decided to convert into a three-storey house. Extensive work gutting No 103 was carried out, as well as the addition of an extra storey and other works between May 2002 and March 2007. No 101 received similar treatment from February 2007 to March 2010. Ms Jones and Ms Lovegrove owned and occupied No 105, a three-storey house, which they purchased in 2002. It adjoins No 103.

Mr Ruth contended that he had obtained the consent of the previous owner of No 105, a Mr Pollard, to the use of a gable wall to support the third storey and the new roof of No 103. Mr Pollard denied that Mr Ruth ever visited him or gave him any detailed plans indicating a third storey was to be added to No 103, and his evidence was accepted.

Mr Ruth denied that any mechanical vibrating tools had been used to demolish the roof of Nos 101 and 103 or to fix new joists, floors and staircases. Judge Wilcox did not accept this evidence, and also found that the addition of a third storey to No 103 had resulted in significant increased loads on the party wall with No 105 and on its foundations. This had led to cracking in No 105 and movement in the door frames which necessitated the refitting of some of the door frames.

Ms Jones and Ms Lovegrove ­commenced proceedings in the Technology and Construction Court seeking damages for nuisance, trespass to property, harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and general damages for personal injury and financial loss caused by the negligence of the defendants in respect of Ms Jones. They kept diaries which formed part of the evidence and, it seems, Mr Ruth also kept a diary from which it appeared that Mr Ruth perceived the claimants as ­irritants who got in the way of his ­project.

Judge Wilcox (Jones & anor v Ruth & anor [2010] EWHC 1538 (TCC)) found that Mr Ruth ‘took the view that 103 was his house and he could do ­whatever he liked to it, and in it, at any time that he chose convenient to the operation of his business and his development activities. He is clearly a hardworking man who is intolerant of criticism’.

Ms Jones claimed that she witnessed the damage to No 105 and, as a ­consequence, suffered from severe back pain brought on by the anxiety and depression this caused. They were also the result of harassment and the bullying manner towards her of Mr Ruth, including repeatedly ignoring requests to reduce the noise and make good the damage the building works had caused. This evidence the judge accepted.

Judge Wilcox found that Mr Ruth had conducted a campaign of harassment against Ms Jones and he awarded her £6,000 damages for this. He did not award her any damages for ­personal injury or financial loss under this head, as he took the view that the damage had to be reasonably ­foreseeable and this issue formed part of an appeal to the Court of Appeal ([2011] EWCA Civ 804, Lawtel, 12 July 2011). Those general damages for personal injury were agreed in the sum of £28,750, subject to liability, and the judge found that five years’ loss of earnings for Ms Jones amounted to £115,000. The Court of Appeal ­considered whether foreseeability should be imported into a claim brought under the Protection from Harassment Act.

The claimant argued that section 3 of the 1997 act ­provides ‘(2) on such a claim, damages may be awarded for (among other things) any anxiety caused by the harassment and any financial loss resulting from the harassment’ and that no mention of foreseeability is included. Delivering the only reasoned judgment, Lord Justice Patten accepted that the ­starting point must be the provisions of the act and neither section 1, which describes the kind of conduct which is actionable, nor section 3, which makes such conduct actionable, make any reference to the damage having to be foreseeable. He saw no reason to imply such a condition having regard to the policy objectives of the statute, and awarded Ms Jones the £28,750 general damages for personal injury and the £115,000 for loss of earnings. Any issue as to medical expenses and future loss of earnings, which were claimed by Ms Jones but not adjudicated upon by the judge, would have to be referred to a Queen’s Bench Master for determination.

Judge Wilcox found the acts of ­trespass to property proved, and accepted that the claimants had not consented to them. He also found that the building works could and should have been completed within a year, and that the continued works over a four-year ­period caused the claimants serious loss of amenity in their ­enjoyment of 105. He awarded the claimants £30,000 for loss of amenity and enjoyment.

In addition, he awarded the claimants £45,000 damages for ­nuisance for what he described as ‘the value to the defendants of the unabated nuisance constituted by the stealing of support for their raised roof and attached third storey. The value to their house is irreversibly enhanced. I would estimate this to be no less than £45,000’.

This was the subject of a cross-appeal by Mr and Mrs Ruth. There was no expert evidence in respect of this, but the Court of Appeal accepted that it was not obviously wrong. It accepted that the starting point in assessing the damages was the amount which was likely to have been paid by a willing party on the grant of a licence. The court considered that it was unlikely to have exceeded one-third of the prospective increase in value of No 103, which would have amounted to £15,000, so that figure was substituted for the £45,000 awarded by Judge Wilcox. As the total award was increased from £81,000 to £194,750, that was a distinctly pyrrhic success.

The moral of this tale must be: be considerate to your neighbours and ignore them at your cost!

District Judge Langley sits at Central London County Court