Unsplash+In collaboration with Mariia ShalabaievaI am not ashamed to say that my success at a hearing yesterday was thanks to Linkedin. I saw a post by Counsel who is representing the Appellant/Claimant in the High Court appeal of Lowe v The Governors of Sutton’s Hospital in Charterhouse.
The original hearing, before HHJ Luba KC at the County Court in Central London, was for £120,888. The Claimant paid a deposit of £4,029.60 and he claims that he had ten tenancies over a 12 year period.
One of the questions was whether the Claimant was limited to the 6 year limitation period or 12? But for Tom’s post I wouldn’t have been made aware of it.
The Claimant’s limitation argument
The Claimant, in Lowe, argued that the statutory penalty awarded under s214(4) Housing Act 2008 was just that, a penalty. It was agreed that the claim was a ‘speciality claim’ as per Collins v Duke of Westminster [1985] 1 QB 581 (which included rights under statute) and that s8 Limitation Act 1980 would dictate that limitation would be 12 years.
However, s9 states that it is a 6 year limitation applies where sums a recoverable by virtue of a staute. As Luba KC said, it would seem on the face of it that the limitation was 6 years. However, the Claimant’s submission was that there is no recovery of a sum as the figure that was being claim was never money it was entitled to but for the Defendant’s failure to protect the deposit.
Further, Counsel made submissions about how the definition of recovery was to recover money spent, invested or lent to someone and you get the same amount back (something lost or taken away). Whilst he accepted that s214(3) did have the ability to recover the deposit, his submission was that particular element would have been limited to a six year limitation.
Judge Luba KC’s findings
You know when you have impressed a Judge even though they did not accept your submission, they describe the submissions as attractive. The Judge found that ‘recoverable’ within the act was intended to include obtaining money not previously paid by the Claimant to the Defendant. He used s10 as an example.
He also accepted the Defendant’s reliance on authorities that did not support the Claimant’s submissions. Essentially, Luba KC found that a statutory penalty was a sum recoverable by virtue of any enactment, irrespective of the fact that the Claimant has never had that money in their hands.
Judge Luba KC decided the Claimant was only able to recover the sums that were within the 6 year limitation period. The overall claim was dismissed for other reasons.
High Court Appeal
The first appeal goes to the High Court. Whilst the appeal dealt with matters that led to the overall dismissal of the claim, the limitation issue was also raised.
Our understanding, thanks to Tom’s post, is that the High Court has reserved the Judgment and the decision (including the limitation issue) will follow.
Application of the above
I was asked to attend a hearing where the Defendant planned to request the Court to dismiss the claim due to limitation.
Although there was a point that the Defendant had hidden the failure to safeguard the deposit, which delayed the limitation period according to s32 of the Limitation Act 1980, the primary argument was that there was a possibility to argue that the limitation period was actually 12 years under s8.
The Judge analysed the case in a similar way as Judge Luba KC, but I argued that the Defendant must prove that the Claimant’s argument as per s8 had no real prospect of success (i.e. it was fanciful at best). It so happened that the High Court had helped my case by considering an appeal on the matter.
If the High Court allowed permission to appeal, it indicated that the argument had reached the required standard of having a genuine chance of success. The Judge agreed with me and, for now, the Claimant’s claim survived to live another day.
Consideration
I am eager to see the results. While some of the other matters being discussed are pertinent to those involved in managing tenancy deposits, there are many landlords who may face additional claims. They previously believed they were shielded by a 6-year time limit, but now that limit has been extended to 12 years.
For now, Claimants can fight off summary judgment/strike out applications for now but as the Judge yesterday indicated, there couldn’t be an infinite stay of proceedings. Tick tock goes the clock…..
Information
AJH Advocacy Limited, a Limited Company which is regulated by the Bar Standards Boards (entity number 190758), ceases trading on the 12th January 2026.
From the 12th January 2026 and onwards, Alec Hancock will practice as a Barrister at Magdalen Chambers in Exeter. For instructions on matters on or after 12th January 2026, please contact Magdalen Chambers via clerks@magdalenchambers.co.uk or by telephone on 01392 285 200.