United Bermuda Party Senate leader Jeanne Atherden and her husband will have to pay a former tenant more than $15,000 after losing a civil case. Stuart Anderson and his wife terminated their lease in 2009 after they discovered they had been unknowingly paying the power and water bill for a nearby cottage as well as their own.

Mrs Atherden said that she was dumbfounded when she had no idea about the double billing, and counter sued for lost rent arguing that the Andersons had broken the lease.

During proceedings, Mr Anderson told the court that he noticed the problem when his power bill plummeted shortly after his neighbour moved out of a cottage on the same property.

When he contacted Belco, he was told that both the house and the cottage shared a Belco meter. He later discovered that the building's also shared a single water tank.

After speaking with the Atherdens, he sent them a letter giving them two months notice that he was going to move out. He said in the letter that he would not seek compensation for the cost of the electricity and water as long as he was able to get back his security deposit.

However, the Atherdens told him that because he had terminated his lease early, he would not get his deposit back.

While the Andersons sued for the value of the deposit, the overpaid utilities and rent abatement for a broken hot tub, the Atherdens filed a countersuit for lost rent and thousands of dollars in damage to the building's water heater and hot water line.

In his ruling dated November 23, Magistrate Juan Wolffe found in favour of the Andersons, writing that the Atherdens should have known the buildings shared utilities.

"I find it difficult to reach the conclusion that the defendants conducted themselves in a dishonest or untoward manner, or that they were unjustly enriching themselves," he wrote.

"Having said that, I find that this oversight was a serious one, as it goes to the very heart of an obligation of a landlord to ensure that the instillations for the supply of electricity are in good working order and that they are in such a condition that they do not cause any undue financial burden on the tenants."

Because of this, Mr Wolffe found that the Atherdens had breached the lease agreement prior to the Andersons terminating it.

He additionally dismissed the claim of damage to the plumbing in the house, saying that there was no evidence that the damage was caused by the Andersons.

Mr Wolffe granted judgement to the Andersons in the amount of $11,000 for the security deposit, $2,632 for the overpaid utilities and $1,650 in rent abatement for the broken hot tub.