Sturolson and Co v Mauroux
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (8824) 18 June 1988, 102-108(3)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: CA 25 January 1988. Appeal by landlords (S) from decision dismissing S`s claim for possession and rent arrears against tenant M , who counterclaimed for damages for breaches of S`s covenants to repair and provide services. As well as dismissing the possession claim, cc judge ordered M to pay £2,988 rent arrears and awarded M £5,895 damages on the counterclaim together with £1,250 interest for breach of S`s implied covenant to repair. S`s present appeal related only to the amount of damages on the counterclaim. S contended that: 1) a rent officer had fixed a fair rent under the Rent Act 1977 s70 taking into account the state of disrepair , so M would be compensated twice if he received damages for breach of covenant to repair and 2) S alleged that M and his wife had failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate their loss, CA rejected both submissions. Firstly, though the rent officer had taken account of the bad state of repair, he had also to place a value on S`s repairing covenant ;| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS39347 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 16069-1001 |
CA 25 January 1988. Appeal by landlords (S) from decision dismissing S`s claim for possession and rent arrears against tenant M , who counterclaimed for damages for breaches of S`s covenants to repair and provide services. As well as dismissing the possession claim, cc judge ordered M to pay £2,988 rent arrears and awarded M £5,895 damages on the counterclaim together with £1,250 interest for breach of S`s implied covenant to repair. S`s present appeal related only to the amount of damages on the counterclaim. S contended that: 1) a rent officer had fixed a fair rent under the Rent Act 1977 s70 taking into account the state of disrepair , so M would be compensated twice if he received damages for breach of covenant to repair and 2) S alleged that M and his wife had failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate their loss, CA rejected both submissions. Firstly, though the rent officer had taken account of the bad state of repair, he had also to place a value on S`s repairing covenant ;