![[2025] EWHC 2477 (Ch)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_O3rEzCI.png){kind=logo}
ISSUES 4, 5 AND 6
ISSUES 4, 5 AND 6
The other issues were:
Are the claimant landlords entitled to retain the disputed rent on the basis of counter-restitution? (Issue 4).
Was Mr Wadley entitled to withhold rent in February 2025 by way of set-off against his counterclaim? (Issue 5).
If the counterclaims succeed, in whole or in part, are the claimants’ rights under Article 1 Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (as enacted in Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998) engaged and breached? (Issue 6).
As a result of our decisions on the first three issues, the last three issues do not arise. The failure of the counterclaims means that the claimants do not need to rely on arguments based on counter-restitution (Issue 4). Mr Wadley did not have a counterclaim and so he had no right to withhold later rent by way of set off against his counterclaim, quite apart from the other arguments advanced to us in opposition to his right of set-off (Issue 5). The claimants have lost no rent in this case as a result of the operation of the Act and its associated secondary legislation. Therefore, the claimants’ challenge under Article 1 Protocol 1 falls away (Issue 6).
- Heading
- The Hon. Mr Justice Griffiths and His Honour Judge Jarman KC
- ISSUE 1 - DID THE DEFENDANTS PAY RENT BECAUSE OF A MISTAKE OF LAW?
- The undisputed facts
- The evidence
- Evidence on behalf of the claimants and Welsh Government
- The evidence of the defendants
- The evidence of Mrs Mitchell
- The evidence of Ms Helen Jones
- The evidence of Mr William Wadley
- Conclusion on the evidence
- ISSUE 2 - WERE THE CLAIMANTS UNJUSTLY ENRICHED AS A RESULT OF THE DEFENDANTS’ MISTAKE?
- ISSUE 3 - IS A CLAIM FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT NOT AVAILABLE TO THE DEFENDANTS IN ANY EVENT, GIVEN THAT THERE IS A SUBSISTING CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THEM AND THE CLAIMANT LANDLORDS?
- ISSUES 4, 5 AND 6
- Conclusions