Mathews v Christie
In the case of Mathews v Christie, the plaintiffs were registered proprietors of the neighbouring property to the defendants and were seeking compensation for damages caused by contractors hired by the defendants. The respondents held the property on trust for the mother of the second defendant; at the time the defendants were redeveloping the property. In the process of redevelopment, the defendants had planned to renew the common boundary fence between the two-neighouring properties. However before doing so, the ivy screen that had grown on the plaintiff’s property for years needed to be removed. The reason being that the ivy had infested the tree on the defendant’s property, whilst using the common boundary fence as support to grow. The defendants had notified the plaintiffs about the …show more content…
Additionally, the plaintiff claimed that their psychological damage continued after the event, as there was a constant reminder every time the plaintiff observed the damaged ivy screen. Whilst it is not known how emotionally attached Barbara’s neighbour was to the chicken coupe, Barbara mentioned that the chickens had been there for years. As a result, it can be assumed that the destruction of the chicken coupe will result in a degree of emotional distress for the neighbour, however the extent cannot be known. Conversely, it was concluded in Mathews v Christie that the defendants could not be charged with damages associated to psychological damage as it would need to be reasonable foreseeable that their actions would lead to extensive mental distress for the plaintiff, Maloney v Commissioner for Railways (NSW). However, in Barbara’s case, if the neighbours can prove that it was reasonable foreseeable that the destruction of the chicken coupe would result in psychological distress, then it is damage may be