Housing association defeats High Court claim for wrongful eviction

A tenant who alleged wrongful eviction by Clarion Housing Association has lost a High Court action in which His Honour Judge Simpkiss said he could not rely on any evidence given by the claimant unless backed up by “some other solid evidence”.

HHJ Simpkiss, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, added: “I am satisfied that his evidence has been designed by him to present a case that fits in with the result he wants to achieve and has little or no connection with the truth.”

The claimant claimed damages for alleged wrongful eviction from a one-bedroom flat in Chelsea because Clarion employees deceitfully engineered a claim that he had surrendered the tenancy and returned the keys.

HHJ Simpkiss said in his judgment communications between the parties were predominantly by email and the case turned on the authenticity of these.

The judge noted the case took nine days rather than the four planned and the number of documents and the way the claimant conducted his case meant “it could have been achieved in a shorter time but only if the claimant had been much more straightforward in his answers and had focussed on the matters that are in fact relevant to deciding this case”.

He added: “The claimant relied on witness statements he had made and was cross-examined at length. I’m afraid that I found him a very unreliable witness. The main (but not the only) reason that his cross-examination took so long was that he was extremely reluctant to accept anything.”

The judge said the central issue was the claimant’s purported belief that he was the victim of a conspiracy to remove him from the flat and enable someone else to occupy it instead.

Expert witnesses examined the emails, which if they were proved to have been sent by the claimant would undermine his case.

As a result, the judge said the claimant sent most if not all of the emails, and his attempts to deny that he sent them on technical grounds “cannot overcome the overwhelming other evidence that he did send them”.

He added it was “thoroughly dishonest” for the claimant to claim he did not send them, and later observed: “The claimant has lied to the court on a number of occasions.”

There was an “inherent improbability” that the vast majority of the relevant emails had been concocted or altered.

HHJ Simpkiss went on: “Even if I had been satisfied that it would have been possible in theory for [Clarion staff] to tamper with the emails I would not have found that they had because, on the claimant’s case and evidence, they have created emails which he says he never sent but I can see no reason why a fraudster would want to create them in order to advance this fraud.”

The judge concluded: “I am therefore satisfied that the claimant was no longer a tenant of the Flat after 30th March 2020 and that his claims for unlawful eviction and breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment fail and the claim is dismissed.” A short further hearing will deal with costs.

Michelle Caney, of St Philips Baristers, who acted for Clarion, said dismissal of the £1.1m claim for unlawful eviction ultimately turned on the claimant’s credibility and the authenticity of emails which, if genuine, “demonstrated that he had given notice to terminate his tenancy before returning his keys”.

Mark Smulian