Mrs Shelley Bloom was a landlord. She desired to evict her tenant, Mr Andrew Henley. He, having lived in the property for over 20 years, did not want to go, even though he had complained about its condition to his landlord in the past. Possession proceedings were issued, which developed complications (no need to go into why). The case was eventually settled on the following basis:

• Mr Henley should give up possession of the flat on or before 1st June 2007,
• Mrs Bloom should pay Mr Henley's solicitors £16,000 in specified instalments;
• This money was not to be paid to Mr Henley until he had vacated the flat;
• Mrs Bloom should pay Mr Henley's costs in the sum of £4,000.

The order also said that it was

"in full and final settlement of any claim that [Mr Henley] might have arising from work improvements or enhancements undertaken by him or on his behalf to the [flat]"; [and] that Mr Henley would give up possession of the flat pursuant to the agreement "in good tenantable repair and condition".

My Henley duly left the flat on 1st May 2007, and Mrs Bloom, no doubt with sighs of relief, carried out 'substantial' redevelopment work to the property.

However unbeknown to her, Mr Henley had, before he left, commissioned a report on the extent of dampness and disrepair in the flat from Mr Sennett, an experienced Environmental Health Officer. On 28 November (a year and a half after he had vacated the property) he issued proceedings against Mrs Bloom claiming compensation from breach of her statutory repairing obligations.