![[2025] EWHC 1859 (KB)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AJKZXmE.png){kind=logo}
Introduction
Introduction
Susan Coombs, the Applicant, seeks orally to renew her application to appeal against the judgment of His Honour Judge Harrison dated 7 January 2025, in which he dismissed her claim for damages caused by an alleged breach of lease, and allowed, in part, the Respondents’ counterclaim for unpaid rent. The Respondents are Mr and Mrs Hayes, the landlords. Permission was refused on paper by Sir Peter Lane.
The Applicant represented herself, accompanied by a McKenzie Friend. The Applicant’s written grounds and skeleton argument were supplemented at the renewal hearing by oral submissions, which followed a script prepared in advance and helpfully provided in writing. The Applicant ably presented her case and was of considerable assistance in responding to questions and expanding upon her grounds of appeal, for which the Court is grateful. The outcome of her appeal, which will no doubt be a disappointment, is no reflection on the clarity with which her arguments were pursued, both in writing and orally.
The subject property was part of The Warehouse, Wharf Road in Newport, South Wales, (‘the Premises’). Mrs Coombs leased the Premises since 2007, and ran a pet shop including an aquarium from the Premises. The Particulars of Claim states that she happily provided live pets and pet supplies without any problems until November 2019.
The pleaded claim relied upon specific terms of her Lease:
Clause 10.1 states that ‘if the building is damaged by any of the risks required to be insured under clause 12 and as a result of that damage to the property or any part of it, cannot be used for the use allowed, the rent or a fair proportion of it, is to be suspended for three years of, if earlier, until the whole of the property can again be used for the use allowed.’
Clause 11 contains a covenant to quiet enjoyment.
Clause 12.1(b) provides that the Landlords are obliged to keep the building insured against damage by, amongst other things, third party liability.
Clause 12.2 provides that the Landlords are required to ‘take all necessary steps to make good as soon as possible all damage to the building by insured risks, except to the extent that insurance money is not paid because of any act or default of the Tenant’.
Clause 13 is headed ‘Services’ and requires the Landlord to comply with the duties listed. Clause 13.1(a) requires that the Landlord maintain the state and condition of the structure, outside, roof, and foundations.
Mrs Coombs’ pleaded claim was that in June 2019, the exterior of the Premises suffered structural damage, caused by adjacent works by Network Rail, which led to significant infestation of vermin in the shop, and flooding at the storage end of the premises. The structural damage meant water and vermin gained access via holes left in the walls.
Paragraph 7 of the Particulars of Claim asserted that the Respondents visited the property in November 2019 with a representative of the Respondents’ insurers who indicated that Mrs Coombs would have to relocate (it is inferred, for remedial works), but that this did not happen because the Respondents blamed the delay in solving the problem on COVID. The Applicant alleged that the vermin problem increased dramatically, with mice eating parts of the walls of both floors. No amount of poison was capable of killing them. The vermin in the property, it is alleged, led to the decline in the business reputation and to sales which eventually led to the shop having to close. It is alleged that some work had been carried out to help with the flooding. In 2019 animal health attended the building, recording vermin droppings. It is said that, in March 2022, the Respondents attempted finally to solve the problems but by this time the shop was in too much disrepair, with vermin holes in every wall of the building. At paragraph 17, the Applicant alleged that by this time the problem was not the floods, it was that holes in the building which meant that the building was completely overrun by vermin.
At paragraph 14, the Applicant pleaded that the her tax returns show a massive drop in her turnover from 2017-18 until 2021-22 when the Applicant eventually had to close her business. A schedule of loss was provided which alleged losses totalling £133,108.95. The main element for the claim was for £99,639.30 for loss of profit over a period of 30 months to the date of the claim, with a statement that the estimated costs for the loss of her business were being compiled. Other claims included £13,588 withdrawn from her pension, and estimated costs incurred on poison, cleaning, and damaged stock.
The Respondents contended that the Applicant could not establish any alleged breach on their part, and denied causation. The counterclaim alleged rent arrears of around £28,000 as at March 2023, together with dilapidations costs of £20,450.44.