Actionable Damage CASES
In English law, actionable damage is the legally recognised loss needed to complete a cause of action in torts that are not actionable per se (for example, negligence). It is distinct from “damages”, which are the monetary remedy.
Definition and principles
There must be more than trivial loss (de minimis). Recognised heads include physical injury, property damage, and consequential financial loss; psychiatric injury is recoverable where it meets established control mechanisms. Pure economic loss is restricted in negligence unless a special duty arises. Some torts (for example, trespass to the person or land) are actionable without proof of damage.
Common examples
- Negligent driving causing minor but measurable injury or repair costs.
- Contamination or encroachment causing physical damage or substantial interference with use and enjoyment (nuisance).
- Negligent misstatement causing financial loss where a duty of care for advice exists.
- Claims failing where there is exposure to risk or breach without resulting loss.
Legal implications
- Without actionable damage, the claim fails and nominal damages are unavailable for damage-based torts.
- Limitation generally runs from the date damage first occurs (subject to latent damage and special regimes).
- Assessment is subject to causation, remoteness, and mitigation principles.
Practical importance
Focusing early on actionable damage sharpens pleadings, evidence, and valuation, and avoids pursuing claims that lack the necessary loss element.
See also: Damages; De minimis; Nominal damages; Negligence; Nuisance; Psychiatric injury; Pure economic loss; Limitation; Causation; Remoteness; Mitigation.
Home » Actionable Damage
A claimant developed asymptomatic pleural plaques from negligent asbestos exposure at work. The House of Lords held that the plaques, being harmless and causing no physical impairment, did not constitute actionable 'damage' in tort, overturning previous authorities on asbestos-related personal injury claims. Facts This case, heard alongside several other similar appeals (notably Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co Ltd), concerned Mr Johnston, who was exposed to asbestos dust whilst employed by the defendants, NEI International Combustion Ltd. This exposure was admitted to have been negligent. As a result, Mr Johnston developed pleural plaques. Pleural plaques are areas of fibrous thickening