WLP Trading & Marketing Ltd v Adham Albalous & Anor

An appellate court should not interfere with an evaluative damages award merely because another figure might have been preferable. Intervention requires an identifiable error, such as reliance on irrelevant matters, failure to consider relevant matters, a material flaw in reasoning, or a conclusion outside the reasonable range.

A party debarred from defending a claim cannot circumvent the sanction by introducing new factual or evidential points on appeal. Pure points of law may receive greater latitude. Exemplary damages may be awarded where a landlord deliberately evicts tenants in the expectation that the financial benefit will exceed the damages payable. A statement of value in Particulars of Claim does not itself remove the court’s power to award a higher sum, although procedural fairness may require amendment.

The respondents claimed damages after the appellant landlord unlawfully removed them from flats occupied under assured shorthold tenancies, destroyed their possessions and engaged in harassment. Liability had been entered for the respondents after the appellant failed to comply with an unless order requiring disclosure. The resulting hearing before Recorder Gibbon was confined principally to quantum.

The Recorder awarded general, harassment, aggravated, exemplary and special damages, together with indemnity costs. On appeal, the appellant challenged the assessment of each category, alleged double counting and argued that the pleaded value of the claims prevented awards exceeding £100,000. The central issues were the proper limits of appellate review and the effect of the appellant’s debarring sanction on the points it could raise.

1. Appeal: The appeal was dismissed on all grounds except the limited challenge to R2’s café-meal claim. R2’s special damages were reduced to cover 179 days rather than 305 days.
2. Effect of the unless order: Applying Al Saud v Gibbs [2024] EWHC 123 (Comm), the sanction struck out the defence and counterclaims, entered judgment for damages to be assessed and debarred the appellant from adducing evidence, cross-examining witnesses or making submissions in defence. The appellant retained limited latitude to identify excessive or legally unavailable relief.
3. Appellate review: An evaluative conclusion may be disturbed only for an identifiable error, including an error of law, a critical finding unsupported by evidence, demonstrable misunderstanding or failure to consider relevant evidence, or a conclusion that cannot reasonably be explained or justified. A clear failure in the evaluative reasoning process may qualify as such an error.
4. New points: The appellant could not rely on new factual or evidential arguments, including mitigation, tapering, alleged overlap or financial advantage, where those matters would have required the hearing below to proceed differently. Pure points of law may be considered with greater latitude. The appellant could not use the appeal to avoid the consequences of its non-compliance.
5. Damages: The daily rate for wrongful eviction was an evaluative choice within the range disclosed by comparable cases. Harassment damages could properly be assessed by reference to the Vento bands. Aggravated damages remained compensatory and could reflect exceptional injury and mental distress. Exemplary damages were available because the appellant deliberately evicted the respondents expecting commercial benefits to outweigh damages; the absence of disclosure justified a broad assessment.
6. Pleading and value: CPR 16.3(7) confirms that a statement of value in a claim form does not limit the court’s power to award the sum properly due. A similar statement in Particulars of Claim did not inherently remove that power, although fairness might require amendment. On the facts, an amendment would probably have been allowed.
7. Costs: The appellant’s conduct throughout the proceedings justified indemnity costs.

• County Court at Central London: Liability was entered for the respondents following the appellant’s non-compliance with an unless order. Recorder Gibbon assessed damages and awarded indemnity costs by order dated 9 July 2024.
• High Court, Chancery Appeals: The appeal was dismissed except for the reduction of R2’s café-meal special damages to 179 days.