Ferguson Latimer & Anor v Carney & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 1417 (27 October 2006)

Ferguson Latimer & Anor v Carney & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 1417 (27 October 2006)

The judge erred in holding that damage to the reversion could not be inferred from estimated repair costs in the absence of actual costs or expert valuation evidence. The court should have inferred diminution in value from the estimated costs of repairs required to remedy breaches, subject to a 60% discount for uncertainty as to the extent of the effect on the reversion. The decoration covenant was a repairing covenant for section 18 purposes. The application to amend the notice of appeal was refused. The costs order against the landlords for the third respondent's Part 20 claim was plainly wrong.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 1417
Parties
Appellant: James Ferguson Latimer; Appellant: Jean Latimer; 1st Respondent: Michael Carney; 2nd Respondent: Jacqueline Edwards; 3rd Respondent: Gary Francis Robson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Covenant to Repair, Damages, Section 18 Landlord and Tenant Act 1927, Diminution in Value, Decorating Covenant, Costs Orders
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Covenant to Repair Damages Section 18 Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 Diminution in Value Decorating Covenant Costs Orders

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Ferguson Latimer

Appellant

Jean Latimer

Appellant

Michael Carney

1st Respondent

Jacqueline Edwards

2nd Respondent

Gary Francis Robson

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the landlords proved damage to the reversion for the purposes of section 18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 ('the cap issue')
  2. 2 Whether the court should permit amendment of the notice of appeal to raise new arguments ('the amendment issue')
  3. 3 Whether a covenant to decorate is a repairing covenant for the purposes of section 18 ('the decoration issue')

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in holding that damage to the reversion could not be inferred from estimated repair costs in the absence of actual costs or expert valuation evidence. The court should have inferred diminution in value from the estimated costs of repairs required to remedy breaches, subject to a 60% discount for uncertainty as to the extent of the effect on the reversion. The decoration covenant was a repairing covenant for section 18 purposes. The application to amend the notice of appeal was refused. The costs order against the landlords for the third respondent's Part 20 claim was plainly wrong.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Damages to be assessed as the sum of £775 for roof repairs plus 40% of the specific estimated costs of other repairs as identified, applying a 60% discount.
  • Application to amend the notice of appeal refused.