Supreme Court to rule next week on damages payable for unlawful eviction

The Supreme Court will next week (3 December) rule on the level of damages payable by a council after it unlawfully evicted a secure tenant from his residential accommodation.

In Loveridge v Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Lambeth UKSC 2013/0273 Harry Loveridge, the appellant, was a secure tenant of a one-bedroom flat owned by Lambeth Council.

On 9 July 2009 he left the property for a lengthy visit to Ghana. He continued to pay his rent by standing order, but a concern that he might have died in the property led the council to effect forcible entry in September 2009.

Lambeth cleared out Loveridge’s possessions, and found a replacement occupant. When he returned his efforts to reinstate his tenancy of the property were unsuccessful.

Loveridge brought proceedings against the council for unlawful eviction, and at first instance was awarded statutory damages and special damages in the total sum of £99,500.

However, on appeal the Court of Appeal substituted agreed common law damages of £16,400.

The issues before the Supreme Court were:

• Was the Court of Appeal wrong to hold that any hypothetical step a landlord could take to affect a tenant's security of tenure, but which had not actually been taken, was relevant to determining the value of the landlord's interest in a building at the time immediately before an unlawful eviction for the purposes of assessing damages under s.28 of the Housing Act 1988 ("the 1988 Act")?
• Was the Court of Appeal wrong to hold that a prospective change in an occupier's rights of occupation, following an actual sale, is relevant to a calculation of s.28(1)(a) damages?

The case was heard on 21 October by a panel comprising Lord Neuberger, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath and Lord Toulson.