Yorkshire Yurts v Crane: price reduction under the Consumer Rights Act cannot compensate for distress

The County Court at York has held that a price reduction under sections 24 and 56 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 may reflect the loss of an amenity the contract was intended to confer, but cannot include compensation for consequential distress, which remains the province of general damages.

In Yorkshire Yurts Limited v Crane and Easterby [2026] EWCC 41, handed down on 9 July 2026, His Honour Judge Walsh allowed an appeal against a £10,000 element of a refund awarded by District Judge MacCuish. Imogen Gray appeared for the appellant, instructed by Hethertons Solicitors. Iain Bain appeared for the respondents, instructed by Hegarty LLP.

Background

The respondents hired a yurt, marquee, catering tent and furniture for their wedding in June 2024. Once erected, the yurt was too dangerous to use. The catering tent proved difficult to assemble, the flooring was damaged across large areas, and some furniture was broken. The couple hired a substitute marquee and rearranged the venue at the last minute.

The district judge found breaches of the implied terms in sections 9, 10 and 48, and assessed a price reduction in two parts: £7,115.60 for the yurt and ancillary items, and £10,000 for distress. The total exceeded the contract price and was capped at £16,504.

The particulars of claim attracted sustained criticism on appeal. They pleaded breach of an unspecified term, sought a refund without pleading any statutory implied term, claimed both the full contract price and consequential costs on a basis that read as double recovery, and made no mention of distress. Judge Walsh described their inadequacies as running as wide as they ran deep. Counsel for the respondents, who had not drafted them, accepted the document was not in the shape it should have been.

The remedy

No authority yet provides guidance on quantifying an "appropriate amount" under the 2015 Act. Judge Walsh reasoned from first principles. The contract price is the financial value the parties placed on full performance, and it sets the parameters of the remedy. A price reduction may run from nil to the whole price, but never beyond it, since anything more could not be described as a reduction. Its purpose is to limit what the consumer pays to the value of what was received, not to vindicate the full expectation interest. Consequential losses form no part of the trader's performance and are recoverable at common law under sections 19 and 54.

Where the contract, or an important part of it, provides a pleasurable amenity, the amenity is not a separate line item but an inherent feature of the price. Drawing on the four categories identified in Milner v Carnival Plc [2010] EWCA Civ 389, Judge Walsh distinguished damages for loss of amenity, which compensate for a contracted-for benefit not received, from damages for distress, which compensate injury to feelings consequent on breach. At common law the two are typically merged in a global award. Under the Act they cannot be.

The district judge's error was narrow but important. He assessed the value of the consequential damage caused by the breach rather than identifying what element of the price was attributable to amenity. His instinct that non-pecuniary loss was relevant was, Judge Walsh emphasised, manifestly correct, and the flaw stemmed from the way the claimants put their case rather than from any failure of his own. A consumer seeking more than a modest sum for distress must plead general damages.

Pleading and discretion

Though strictly academic, Judge Walsh addressed the remaining grounds. He rejected the submission that the district judge lacked power to permit an unpleaded case to proceed, locating that discretion in CPR rules 3.10 and 3.1(1)(p). Such a course is exceptional, requires the parameters of the new case to be tolerably clear at the outset, and carries a heavy burden on the party advancing it, with the late amendment authorities directly relevant.

Here the point surfaced only in trial skeleton argument. The claimants offered no excuse for their very poor litigation conduct. But the issue was clear and discrete, no adjournment was needed, the first claimant's witness statement had described being distraught, and the defendant conceded it had no contrary evidence. The decision fell within the wide margin of the judge's discretion.

The price reduction will be requantified at a consequentials hearing, both parties having agreed that remission would add disproportionate cost to a modest claim.