Cases - Earle v Charalambous
Record details
- Name
- Earle v Charalambous
- Date
- [2006]
- Citation
- EWCA Civ 1090
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Commercial property - property management - dilapidations - tenant's claim for damages against its landlord - repairs
- Summary
-
Related cases: Calabar Properties Ltd v Stitcher [1984] 1 WLR 287; [1983] 3 All ER 759; (1983) 268 EG 697, CA and Wallace v Manchester City Council [1998] 3 EGLR 38
Three leading cases relating to the manner in which to appropriate a tenant’s claim for damages against its landlord for breach by the landlord of its repairing obligations.
In summary, the approach is to identify the amount that will put the tenant back into the position it would have been but for the breach of covenant by the landlord. Linked with that is a comparison of the property as it was during the period of the landlord’s breach with what it should have been had there been no breach. If the tenant remained in occupation during the period of the breach, then it will be entitled to be compensated for the loss of comfort and convenience it suffered from occupying a property that was out of repair. If the tenant was forced to sell or sublet the property as a result of the landlord’s disrepair, then it will be entitled to be compensated by reference to the consequential reduction in the price or rent received. Even if the tenant did not want to sublet, if the tenant has a substantial interest (in the Earle case, the tenant had a long lease of a flat) damages can be assessed by reference to the rent that could have been obtained for the property. The claim will run from the moment the landlord was in breach of covenant (Wallace concerned residential property).