Case law update: Khan v Mehmood (2022) EWCA Civ 791

Background 

This matter is a rent possession claim brought by the Landlord, Ms Khan, and a defence and disrepair counterclaim by the tenant, Mr Mehmood. 

In the first instance, the Landlord did not attend and was unrepresented. The possession claim was dismissed, and a judgment was made on the counterclaim which awarded the tenant 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 appealed this decision and the appeal was dismissed. She then brought a second appeal in the Court of Appeal. 

Issues to consider 

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 – 2011 as the tenant had confirmed that they had not been the tenant, but instead was a lodger of the main tenant.
   
2. Should or did the Simmons v Castle uplift apply to disrepair general damages.
   

Issue 1 was a factual issue as the tenant has admitted in the reply to Defence and Counterclaim and his witness statement that the tenancy agreement did not start until 2011. 

With regards to the second issue, arguments were made on both sides but in the end, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the first ground but dismissed it on the second. It was said that a Claimant’s claim for damages for breach of a repairing covenant manifestly falls within the class of cases covered by Simmons v Castle. 

This case confirms what we already considered the position to be, that the Simmons v Castle uplift applies to general damages in disrepair claims. If you have any questions, please contact Tom Stockton thomasstockton@msbsolicitors.co.uk 

*Law is correct as at 22nd June 2022 

Whilst every effort has been taken to ensure that the law in this article is correct, it is intended to give a general overview of the law for educational purposes. You are respectfully reminded that it is not intended to be a substitute for specific legal advice and should not be relied upon as legal advice. No liability is accepted for any error or omission contained herein.