Description
Insurers and owners sought compensation under the
Riot (Damages) Act 1886 for losses incurred during the looting and destruction of the Sony distribution warehouse in London during the August 2011 riots. The issues: the meaning of 'persons riotously and tumultuously assembled together' in
s. 2(1); and, whether consequential losses, including loss of profit and loss of rent, are recoverable pursuant to s. 2(1) and/or 2(2).
Held: The strict liability to provide compensation is engaged where the following requirements of 'persons riotously and tumultuously assembled together' are satisfied: there must be a riot within the meaning of s. 1,
Public Order Act 1986; the assembly must be of some size; the persons assembled must be acting publicly, as opposed to stealthily, in an agitated, excited or volatile manner which could, at least notionally, have been prevented by the police; the rioters must be engaging in wanton destruction or damage and not simply looting in order to steal. Whether those requirements are satisfied is assessed objectively according to a person of reasonable fortitude, who, if present at the scene, would fear for their personal safety. In assessing whether there is a palpable threat to which the police could notionally have responded, the court is entitled to look at all the evidence, including the perception of the local community, and not restricted to what is reported to the police. Subsequent events or incidents are irrelevant.
On the correct construction of the statute as a whole, the compensation payable is limited to physical damage to the relevant premises or property in it and does not extend to consequential losses such as loss of profit or loss of rent.
In the present case, the group of youths who attacked, looted and set fire to the warehouse came within the meaning of 'persons riotously and tumultuously assembled together'. However, the claimants could not claim consequential losses as a free-standing head of claim.
