The claimant was a secure tenant of English Churches Housing Group. He was unemployed and lived on benefits. He claimed damages against his landlord for breaches of the repairing covenants implied by section 11. The court considerd the appropriate level of damages. For the breach of landlord’s covenant to repair.
Held: The court allowed the landlord’s appeal and reduced the damages to andpound;8,000, subject to set-off in respect of some of the landlord’s costs. Where a tenant was awarded damages for a landlord’s breach of his covenant to repair, the damages awarded should reflect the rent payable under the lease. The tenant here had the benefit of a secure tenancy at a rent well below the market rent, and the damages were reduced accordingly. The court criticised the conduct of the hearing by the judge: ‘[The judge’s] behaviour is unacceptable. He is both abrupt and discourteous. He makes it clear he is not prepared to entertain argument, and gives no reasons.’
Judges:
Lord Justice Keene and Lord Justice Wall
Citations:
[2004] EWCA Civ 434, Times 02-Jun-2004, Gazette 20-May-2004, [2004] HLR 42
Links:
Statutes:
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 11
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – McGriel v Wake CA 1984
. .
Cited – Fayner v Bilton 1878
. .
Cited – Wallace and others v Manchester City Council CA 23-Jul-1998
Damages payable to a tenant for a landlord’s failure to repair whilst the tenant remained in the property were not separate damages for discomfort and diminution in rental value since these amounted to the same thing: ‘for periods when the tenant . .
Cited by:
Cited – London Borough of Southwark v Kofi-Adu CA 23-Mar-2006
The authority complained that during the course of the trial, the judge had repeatedly intervened during oral evidence.
Held: A judge must be careful not to repeatedly intervene during oral evidence as opposed to counsel making submissions. . .
Cited – Regus (UK) Ltd v Epcot Solutions Ltd CA 15-Apr-2008
The appellant had contracted to provide office accomodation to the defendant. The air conditioning did not work and there were other defects. The appellant now challenged a finding of liability and that its contract terms which were said to totally . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing, Damages
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.197044
