Smith v Khan

Smith v Khan

There was no implied surrender of the tenancy by Mr Smith as of 15 April 2015. Mrs Smith was entitled to general damages for trespass at £130 per day from 15 April to 30 June 2015, as her right to possession continued until the end of the fixed term. Damages should not be limited to 28 days. The District Judge's award was too low, and Judge Owen was wrong to reduce the period for damages. Mr Khan's cross-appeal on the daily rate was dismissed.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Joy Smith; Defendant/respondent: Mohammed Riaz Khan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unlawful Eviction, Damages for Trespass, Implied Surrender of Tenancy, Assured Shorthold Tenancy, Protection From Eviction, Aggravated and Exemplary Damages
Landlord and Tenant Family Law Civil Procedure Unlawful Eviction Damages for Trespass Implied Surrender of Tenancy Assured Shorthold Tenancy Protection From Eviction +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joy Smith

Claimant/appellant

Mohammed Riaz Khan

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was an implied surrender of the tenancy by Mr Smith as of 15 April 2015
  2. 2 The correct period and rate for assessment of general damages for trespass following unlawful eviction
  3. 3 Whether the judge was right to limit damages to 28 days under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977

Ratio Decidendi

There was no implied surrender of the tenancy by Mr Smith as of 15 April 2015. Mrs Smith was entitled to general damages for trespass at £130 per day from 15 April to 30 June 2015, as her right to possession continued until the end of the fixed term. Damages should not be limited to 28 days. The District Judge's award was too low, and Judge Owen was wrong to reduce the period for damages. Mr Khan's cross-appeal on the daily rate was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of 2 June 2016 set aside
  • Mr Khan to pay damages for trespass at £130 per day from 15 April to 30 June 2015, totalling £9,880