Facts of Attia v British Gas
The claimant, Mrs. Attia, engaged the defendant, British Gas, to install a central heating system in her home. Upon returning from work, Mrs. Attia observed smoke emanating from the loft of her house. She promptly called the fire brigade, but by the time they arrived, the fire had already spread uncontrollably, leading to extensive damage to her home and its contents. The defendants admitted liability for the fire, which was caused by their negligence, and settled the property damage claim.
However, Mrs. Attia also claimed damages for the psychiatric harm she suffered after witnessing the destruction of her home. She argued that the experience caused her significant mental trauma, resulting in a recognised psychiatric illness. The defendants disputed this aspect of the claim on two grounds:
- It was not reasonably foreseeable that the claimant would suffer psychiatric harm as a result of witnessing property damage.
- As a matter of public policy, damages for psychiatric harm should not be recoverable when the harm arises solely from property damage.
The High Court ruled in favour of the defendant, concluding that the claim for psychiatric harm was not legally sustainable and dismissed the case without a trial. Mrs. Attia appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal.
Issues
The Attia v British Gas case raised two critical legal issues:
- Foreseeability: Was it reasonably foreseeable that the claimant might suffer psychiatric injury as a result of witnessing the destruction of her home caused by the defendant’s negligence?
- Public Policy: Should public policy exclude claims for psychiatric harm arising purely from property damage?
Attia v British Gas Judgement
The Court of Appeal in Attia v British Gas allowed Mrs. Attia’s appeal and held that the case should proceed to trial. The court made the following key determinations:
Foreseeability
The question of whether the claimant’s psychiatric harm was reasonably foreseeable is a matter of fact and cannot be decided as a preliminary issue. Such questions require a full trial where evidence can be presented and scrutinised.
The Court of Appeal emphasised that foreseeability depends on the specific circumstances of the case and should not be dismissed without thorough examination.
Public Policy
The court rejected the defendant’s argument that claims for psychiatric harm should be categorically excluded when they arise solely from property damage.
Bingham LJ stated that limiting recovery to cases involving personal injury would not be “fair or convenient” and lacked justification in principle or policy.
The court dismissed concerns about opening the “floodgates” to unmeritorious claims, asserting that established legal principles, such as causation and foreseeability, would adequately filter such cases.
As a result, the Attia versus British Gas case was remitted for trial to address the factual question of foreseeability and to determine whether the claimant’s psychiatric harm was caused by the defendant’s negligence.
Conclusion
Attia v British Gas [1988] QB 304 is a landmark case that significantly broadened the scope of negligence law in the UK. By recognising claims for psychiatric harm arising from property damage, the Court of Appeal demonstrated a progressive and compassionate approach to the evolving understanding of mental health and emotional trauma.
The decision reaffirmed the principles of foreseeability and causation while rejecting blanket policy exclusions that could unfairly deny claimants access to justice. While the case raised concerns about the potential expansion of liability, it ultimately underscored the importance of treating each claim on its merits and ensuring fairness for all parties involved.
Attia vs British Gas case remains a cornerstone in the development of tort law, highlighting the courts’ willingness to adapt legal principles to reflect the realities of human experience and the complexities of modern life.