Farley v Skinner [2001] UKHL 49
Surveyor negligently reporting property unaffected by noise; whether damages recoverable
Facts
Farley instructed Skinner to prepare a survey on a property he was considering purchasing. The property was 15 miles from an airport, and Farley specifically requested Skinner to ascertain whether it would be affected by aircraft noise because he did not wish to live on a flight path. Skinner reported the property was unlikely to be affected by aircraft noise. Farley purchased it and it was substantially affected by aircraft noise. He sought damages for breach of contract.
Issues
Farley argued the report was sub-standard and in breach of contract because he had specifically requested Skinner investigate the issue of aircraft noise, and Skinner had failed to do so. He sought damages to compensate him for the diminution in enjoyment of his property he suffered because of the noise. He contended such losses were recoverable despite the fact he had not suffered financial losses, and to establish physical discomfort, it was not necessary for him to prove a physical injury. Morrow contended damages for mental distress were generally irrecoverable for breach of contract. Farley had not suffered pecuniary losses and damages for distress may only be recovered where the object of the contract was freedom from distress. Surveyors contracts contain a promise to exercise reasonable skill and care in the provision of information, and the provision of amenity cannot be said to be the object of such contracts.
Decision/Outcome
Farley recovered £10,000 for his discomfort. Damages could be recoverable for the loss of a pleasurable amenity which may be of no economic value, if they are of importance to the claimant. Recovery was not restricted to physical discomfort, and it was sufficient to show that the question of the amenity formed an important part of the contract.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Farley v Skinner [2001] UKHL 49. The House of Lords’ ruling remains good law. The principle that damages for loss of amenity or physical discomfort may be recoverable in contract where the relevant matter formed an important part of the contract continues to be recognised and applied by the courts. The broader framework for non-pecuniary damages in contract was further examined by the Supreme Court in Ogden v Ingram and, more significantly, in Morris-Garner v One Step (Support) Ltd [2018] UKSC 20, though neither decision disturbs the principle established in Farley v Skinner. The £10,000 award and the legal principles summarised here remain an accurate statement of the law as it stands. Students should note that this area continues to be developed through case law and should consult up-to-date textbooks for the full surrounding context, including the relationship with Watts v Morrow [1991] and Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth [1996].
