Landlord and tenant – Tenant evicted by landlord and landlord’s daughter – Daughter convicted under Protection from Eviction Act 1977 – Tenant seeking damages against both landlord and daughter – Judge finding daughter landlord for purposes of award of damages under Housing Act 1988 – Judge also awarding exemplary and aggravated damages – Whether statutory damages exhaustive – Appeal allowed
The plaintiff was the tenant, by an oral agreement, of a ground-floor flat the freehold of which was owned by the first defendant. On November 6 1992 the first defendant and her daughter, the second defendant, went to the premises and unlawfully evicted the plaintiff. The second defendant was subsequently convicted under section 1(2) of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, and was fined and ordered to pay compensation and costs. The plaintiff commenced civil proceedings against the first defendant and later joined the second defendant claiming against both damages including aggravated and exemplary damages and damages under sections 27 and 28 of the Housing Act 1988.
The plaintiff succeeded and the judge awarded damages against: (i) both defendants of £1,500 for trespass to personal property and £1,000 “exemplary” damages; (ii) the first defendant of £40,000 “aggravated” damages at common law; and (iii) the second defendant £40,000 statutory damages under sections 27 and 28. The awards of £40,000 against the first and second defendants respectively were expressed to be joint and several. The first defendant subsequently left the country but the second defendant appealed contending that the judge had been wrong to hold that she had been the landlord in default within the meaning of sections 27 and 28, and that the award of damages in respect of trespass to personal property was inappropriate and excessive. It was common ground that the judge had confused aggravated damages and exemplary damages.
Held The appeal was allowed.
1. The judge had erred in his application of section 27(9)(c), which defined a landlord for the purpose of the 1988 Act and had wrongly awarded statutory damages against the second defendant. The first defendant was the freehold owner at the relevant time, and although the intention of the first and second defendants had been that the freehold interest would shortly be acquired by the second defendant, and that they had both intended to deprive the plaintiff of occupation, hope and intention in the absence of writing could not provide a present legal or equitable interest in land. On the facts it was clear that the first defendant was the landlord for the purposes of an award of statutory damages under the Act.
2. An award of damages under sections 27 and 28 of the Act against a landlord who had wrongfully evicted a tenant, was exhaustive and there was no place for a further award either against the landlord or an assisting person. The judge therefore had not been entitled to award exemplary damages against the first defendant. In any event the award of £40,000 statutory damages against the first defendant was excessive, even if there had been no award against the second defendant, since it took no account of the other damages awarded, nor of the criminal proceedings, nor of the defendant’s means.
Adrian Jack (instructed by Ziadies) appeared for the appellant; Colm Davis-Lyons (instructed by Sampson Wood) appeared for the respondent.
