Attia v British Gas [1988] QB 304
NEGLIGENCE – PROPERTY DAMAGE – PSYCHIATRIC HARM
Facts
C engaged British Gas (D) to install a new central heating system in her home but returned to find that her loft had caught fire. The house and its contents suffered extensive damage, which C witnessed first-hand. The property claim against D was settled, as their breach of duty had plainly caused the damage C’s house, however C also sued to recover damages for nervous shock, incurred as a result of witnessing her belongings. This claim as dismissed at first instance and C brought an appeal.
Issues
This case raised two distinct issues, one factual and one a matter of policy. The factual question concerned whether, for the purposes of imposing a duty of care on D, it was reasonably foreseeable that the loft would catch fire. The second question, and the more important, concerned whether, in principle, damages were recoverable for recognised psychiatric harm where the harm in question was caused purely to property.
Decision/Outcome
The Court of Appeal found in favour of C, holding that, as a matter of principle, there was no doctrinal or policy reason to limit the recovery of damages to psychiatric harm arising as a result of damage to property. To limit such cases to personal injury would not be ‘fair or convenient’ ([1988] QB 304, per Bingham LJ), nor was such a limitation justifiable as a matter of policy; the only substantive policy reason to reject liability in such circumstances was the fear of opening the ‘floodgates’ to a raft of unmeritorious claims, which the Court dismissed as unfounded. The case was thus remitted to trial for determination of the foreseeability question.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case note accurately reflects the decision in Attia v British Gas plc [1988] QB 304. The Court of Appeal’s holding — that damages for recognised psychiatric illness caused by witnessing damage to one’s own property are recoverable in principle — remains good law and is regularly cited in academic and judicial discussions of psychiatric harm in negligence. Readers should note, however, that the law on psychiatric harm (or “nervous shock”) has developed considerably since 1988, most significantly through the House of Lords’ decisions in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310 and Page v Smith [1996] AC 155, which refined the distinctions between primary and secondary victims. Attia itself is generally treated as involving a primary victim scenario (the claimant was personally present at the scene of the damage to her own property), and this categorisation is important to its continued authority. The case note does not address these later developments, so students should read it alongside the post-Alcock case law on psychiatric harm when building a complete picture of this area of negligence law. The foreseeability issue, which was remitted to trial, does not appear to have produced a reported judgment and so the article’s account of the Court of Appeal decision remains the relevant legal reference point.
