Chiodi (Personal Representative of) v De Marney
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (8841) 15 October 1988, 80-87(4)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: CA 7 June 1988. Appeal by landlords (C) from cc decision awarding damages to tenant (D) and allowing D`s counterclaim in C`s action for possession. D was the statutory tenant of a flat and the damages had been awarded for breach of repairing covenants implied by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s11. CC found D`s flat in a great state of disrepair and awarded damages of £5,460 on the basis of £30 per week over three and a half years for inconvenience and distress ; £4,657 for special damages in respect of furniture, decorations, clothing etc and £1,500 for injury to health. C appealed, contending that the first item of damages was too high as it did not reflect the rent of £8 per week and this indicated an error by CC. CA held, reviewing several authorities, that although the award was high, it was not so large by itself to indicate an error. CC was not in error in failing to take into account the rent. Appeal dismissed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS39861 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 19529-1001 |
CA 7 June 1988. Appeal by landlords (C) from cc decision awarding damages to tenant (D) and allowing D`s counterclaim in C`s action for possession. D was the statutory tenant of a flat and the damages had been awarded for breach of repairing covenants implied by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s11. CC found D`s flat in a great state of disrepair and awarded damages of £5,460 on the basis of £30 per week over three and a half years for inconvenience and distress ; £4,657 for special damages in respect of furniture, decorations, clothing etc and £1,500 for injury to health. C appealed, contending that the first item of damages was too high as it did not reflect the rent of £8 per week and this indicated an error by CC. CA held, reviewing several authorities, that although the award was high, it was not so large by itself to indicate an error. CC was not in error in failing to take into account the rent. Appeal dismissed.