Cara Hall secures damages of £12,100 for her vulnerable client for disability discrimination

Cara Hall represented LS, a young woman with Down’s Syndrome and associated learning disabilities in relation to a counterclaim for discrimination on grounds of disability against her landlord.

Her landlord had issued a claim for possession following service of a letter about supposedly unacceptable behaviour she had engaged in. LS defended the claim on the basis that the behaviour arose in consequence of her disabilities, and that to seek to evict her as a result of the same amounted to discrimination on grounds of disability.

In December 2024, the court dismissed the claim for possession and entered default judgment on LS’s counterclaim, since the Claimant had failed to file and serve a defence to the same or to attend the hearing.

The matter came back before the court for an assessment of damages hearing on 5 August 2025, where DDJ Freer agreed with counsel that damages at the very top end of the lower Vento band were appropriate in the circumstances. While the lifespan of the possession claim was contextually quite short so as to place the counterclaim squarely within the lower band, there were numerous factors which justified an award at the highest level in that band, including the fact that not only was the Claimant aware of LS’s disabilities but that it is in fact a specialist provider of supported accommodation for adults with learning disabilities. As such, the Claimant ought to have been mindful of any additional needs and disability related behaviours presented by LS and could have accessed additional resources from social services if the same were necessary. Instead, the Claimant proceeded to seek possession immediately, and on a mandatory ground no less. 

LS had suffered significant distress, particularly because it was difficult for her to understand the proceedings by reason of her disabilities. LS was scared that these proceedings would result in her going to prison. The proceedings were also particularly stressful for LS as it would be difficult for her to find alternative accommodation suitable for her needs and close to her family and friends. LS had also had to consult her GP in respect of stress related symptoms as a result of these proceedings, which she had never experienced before. Considering these facts together, the Judge considered an award of £12,100 to be wholly appropriate.

Cara Hall was instructed by Laura Coyle at Turpin Miller.