[2025] EWHC 1859 (KB)

It is argued that the Judge’s finding dismissing the Applicant’s claim is inconsistent with the Judge’s finding that there was disrepair entitling the Applicant to a reduction in rent, in the context of the Counterclaim.

This is not reasonably arguable. The dismissal of the claim was predicated on whether the Applicant had established that there existed a particular state of disrepair, causative of the flooding (and, in particular, the rodent infestation which is claimed to have led principally to the loss of business) which the Respondents were obligated to repair. He found no such disrepair. That is not inconsistent with a finding that the damp caused by the flooding which occurred over the winter of 2019/2020, rendered the property for a period of time such that no rent was payable, whether in accordance with Clause 12 or otherwise.