Regalgrand Ltd v Dickerson and another [1996]

Regalgrand Ltd v Dickerson and another [1996]
Damages awarded to tenants under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 for unlawful eviction were significantly reduced due to rent arrears and the tenants’ conduct.

Two tenants were granted an assured shorthold tenancy of a flat in July 1990. Following the tenants’ dissatisfaction with living conditions in the flat, namely the lack of adequate heating and water and a damp problem, the tenants stopped paying rent in December 1990 and decided that they were going to leave at or near or at the end of February 1991.

The landlord then entered the flat when the tenants were not there and, believing that the tenants had vacated the flat, he changed the locks.  He also sent a letter to the tenants telling them that he considered the property to have been abandoned, and he informed them that he had changed the locks.
The landlord sued for rent arrears and the tenants counterclaimed for damages for breach of the tenancy agreement (due to failure to provide heating and to carry out repairs) and for wrongful eviction.
The landlord was awarded damages for the rent arrears, but the tenants’ counterclaim was also successful as the court found that the landlord had failed to show a reasonable cause for thinking that they had stopped living in the flat.

Initially the judge concluded that pursuant to s. 27 Housing Act 1988 the appropriate sum to be awarded to the tenants was £12,000. However, this was reduced to £1,500 by the judge who found that the tenants’ conduct ‘was such that it is reasonable to mitigate damages for which the landlord would otherwise be liable.’ The judge ruled that the withholding of rent, the intention to vacate at the end of February and the tenants’ failure to inform the landlord that the boiler he had fitted had failed to solve the heating problems that they were having was relevant conduct and should be taken into consideration.
The tenants appealed against this reduction in their damages.

HELD:
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, as the judge had been entitled to come to the conclusion that she did in deciding to reduce the damages. It was thought that the sum that the judge had decided on should not be changed for a sum imposed by the Court, unless the Court thought that the judge had been clearly wrong.

This is an important case as it shows that courts may reduce damages due to rent arrears.
This may signal the end of high awards for damages for unlawful eviction which have become prevalent.
The effect of this would be to reduce the number of cases involving statutory damages, which are now only likely to be relevant where the tenant has a protected tenancy of a self-contained dwelling or the tenant is the last remaining occupier of a house in multiple occupation.

Citation: Regalgrand Ltd v Dickerson and another [1996] EWCA Civ 937