Frasca-Judd v Golovina

Frasca-Judd v Golovina

The tenancy agreement, properly construed, allocated the risk of loss from insured risks (including those caused by the tenant's negligence or breach) to the landlord's insurance, precluding a damages claim against the tenant. The landlord's insurer, acting by subrogation, has no greater right than the landlord. Therefore, the claim fails both on the legal issue and, on the facts, the claimant did not prove the tenant turned off the heating.

Parties
Claimant: Elizabeth Ann Frasca-Judd; Defendant: Galina Golovina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil (landlord and Tenant) / Judgment After Trial and Appeal of Summary Judgment/strike Out Application
Outcome
Claim dismissed; defendant's appeal against costs order also dismissed.
Legal Topics
Subrogation, Allocation of Risk in Tenancy Agreements, Landlord's Covenant to Insure, Tenant's Liability for Insured Risks, Construction of Tenancy Agreements
Landlord and Tenant Insurance Law Contract Law Subrogation Allocation of Risk in Tenancy Agreements Landlord's Covenant to Insure Tenant's Liability for Insured Risks Construction of Tenancy Agreements

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elizabeth Ann Frasca-Judd

Claimant

Galina Golovina

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (landlord and Tenant) / Judgment After Trial and Appeal of Summary Judgment/strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the landlord's insurer can recover by subrogation from the tenant for damage caused by an insured risk under the tenancy agreement
  2. 2 Whether the tenancy agreement allocated risk of insured losses to the landlord's insurance, precluding a damages claim against the tenant
  3. 3 Whether the tenant breached clause 2.3.12 by failing to leave heating on, causing the damage

Ratio Decidendi

The tenancy agreement, properly construed, allocated the risk of loss from insured risks (including those caused by the tenant's negligence or breach) to the landlord's insurance, precluding a damages claim against the tenant. The landlord's insurer, acting by subrogation, has no greater right than the landlord. Therefore, the claim fails both on the legal issue and, on the facts, the claimant did not prove the tenant turned off the heating.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; defendant's appeal against costs order also dismissed.