Laimond Properties Ltd v Raeuchle: CA 24 Jan 2000

The landlord acquired the freehold of a small block of flats in 1993. The defendant had been a tenant protected under the Rent Acts since 1976. He also made use of a neighburing empty room without paying rent. His rent was nearly all paid through housing benenefits, but a shortfall grew, and possession proceedings were begun, with a claim for damages for trespass in the adjoining room. The tenant resisted possession proceedings alleging a failure to repair. He now appealed the dismissal of his counterclaim and the grant of possession.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The grant of a suspension as requested by the tenant was a matter of the judge’s discretion which could be interfered with only if the decision was flawed. S103(3) did not allow the imposition of payment obligation other than those for rent. The judge had not properly considered whether the sum of andpound;10.00 offered by the tenant would be likely to succeed in discharging the arrears of andpound;511.00, but had instead considered extraneous factors for the sum claimed for trespass. The judge should also have restricted his consideration to the matters pleaded.


Sir Richard Scott V-C, Chadwick LJ


[2000] EGI


England and Wales


See AlsoLaimond Properties Limited v Al-Shakarchi CA 10-Feb-1998
If ‘suitable alternative accommodation’ was offered in exchange for a protected tenancy, the court need look only for some security for the tenant, not that he should receive equal protection. Where the landlord persuades the Rent Act protected . .
Application for leaveLaimond Properties Limited and Christina Raeuchle CA 18-Aug-1999
Application for leave to appeal granted. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.235017