The Issues

The appellant originally brought possession proceedings in 2013, and the respondent counterclaimed for disrepair under s11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for a failure to keep the property in a reasonable state of repair.

In the first instance, the Landlord did not attend and was not represented.  The possession claim was dismissed and a judgement was made on the counterclaim whereby the tenant was awarded 50% of rent for the period from 2007 to 2014.  The Judge also added the Simmons v Castle 10% uplift to the award for damages. 

The Landlord subsequently appealed this decision and the appeal was dismissed.  She then brought a second appeal in the Court of Appeal.

In deciding this matter, the Court of Appeal had to consider two issues:

1. Damages should not have been awarded for the period between 2007 and 2011 as the tenant had confirmed that they had not been the tenant during this time, but in fact was a lodger of the main tenant.

2. Should the Simmons v Castle uplift apply to disrepair general damages?

Held

The Court granted permission on the Simmons v Castle point, and on the duration of the damages award.  The Housing Law Practitioners’’ Association were granted leave to intervene and argued that the uplift did apply and was necessary to pay for CFAs which were largely used to finance disrepair claims.

Comments

Damages awarded to claimants in these types of cases are historically low, and as such  clearly come within the category of case for which the 10% uplift was specifically intended.  The primary purpose of the introduction of the 10% uplift was to compensate successful claimants following LASPO, and where the success fee could no longer be recovered from the defendant.

External link:  Simmons v Castle:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1039.html

A copy of the Judgement of Khan v Mehmood [2022] is available here:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2022/791.html

< Back to case list