A bridal boutique owner whose wedding dress business appeared on Married at First Sight is suing her former landlord for more than £500,000 after claiming years of leaks and damp destroyed hundreds of gowns.

Sharon Underwood, 57, says her award-winning bridal company Love Me Do Brides suffered devastating losses after water repeatedly poured into her flagship store in Kingston-upon-Thames, damaging dresses, veils, tiaras and other wedding accessories.

The entrepreneur claims the problems became so severe that stock had to be thrown away, donated to charity or sold at heavily discounted prices, costing her business hundreds of thousands of pounds in lost profits.

Ms Underwood has now launched a High Court battle against former landlords Muhammad and Areeb Azam, alleging that persistent leaks and damp over a 14-year period turned what should have been the crown jewel of her business into a nightmare.

Her lawyers say the ongoing problems caused her 'severe mental distress', resulting in 'the breakdown of her marriage' as well as 'feelings of entrapment, embarrassment and despair.'

The court heard that Ms Underwood built a successful reputation in the bridal industry after opening her first boutique in Walton-on-Thames in 2004 before expanding into larger premises in nearby Kingston the following year.

Her business went on to gain national exposure, featuring on television programmes including Married at First Sight and the BBC's Don't Tell the Bride, while also earning industry awards and coverage in glossy magazines.

But despite the success, Ms Underwood claims her Kingston store was plagued by problems almost from the moment she moved in.

According to her case, repeated leaks from various parts of the building, including adjoining flats owned by the landlords, caused extensive water damage throughout the premises. 

Hundreds of dresses were allegedly ruined over the years, while others remained in storage so long that they went out of fashion and could only be sold at a fraction of their original value.

She eventually abandoned the premises in 2019 after what her legal team described as years of battling damp, flooding and disrepair.

Her barrister Antonida Kocharova told Central London County Court that the Kingston branch had been intended to serve as the company's 'flagship boutique, a source of pride and professional achievement,' but instead became synonymous with loss and disruption.

However, the landlords are vigorously contesting the claim. They deny responsibility for much of the alleged damage and have questioned the accuracy of the losses being claimed by Ms Underwood and her company.

The defendants are also pursuing a counterclaim for more than £38,000 in alleged unpaid rent and tenancy charges.

The court heard that one of the worst incidents occurred in 2014 when Ms Underwood received a call from staff reporting that water was pouring into a basement stock room, soaking boxes containing wedding dresses and accessories.

'The dresses that were directly under the leak were damaged so badly they had to be thrown away or given to charity,' she later told the court.

In 2007, Ms Underwood herself was featured from her Walton store on the first episode of 'Don't Tell the Bride' on BBC3, helping save a devastated bride's wedding by supplying a new dress after her groom had botched his first choice.

She told Judge Simon Monty KC that the new shop was much larger than the Walton branch, set over the ground floor and basement of a double fronted premises in Park Road, Kingston.

But Ms Underwood claims there were problems from the start, including a lack of drinking water, a store room rendered unusable by a gas smell, followed by rising damp and repeated leaks.

'There were significant problems with damp and leaks, which caused a lot of damage to the stock and eventually forced the claimants to move out all of the stock and stop trading from this shop,' said her barrister Antonida Kocharova.

Leaks came from various places, Ms Underwood claims, including from the flat roof and awning and from two adjoining flats which were also owned by her landlords, the Azams.

Ms Underwood said 75 items - wedding and bridesmaid dresses, veils, tiaras and hoop skirts - were so badly damaged they couldn't be sold, while another 106 had to be sold at a discount.

Another leak in the same area in 2015 resulted in 79 items lost and 155 sold for less than their true value, she said, describing the carpet in the basement as 'sopping.'

'There was carpeting down the stairs,' she said. 'It used to be sopping wet, to the point you could put footprints in them.

'We moved things all the time. The leak would get sorted and we would move them somewhere else, then there would be another leak.'

She told the judge giving away so many dresses to charity meant she had to tour local shops as it was embarrassing to keep returning to the same ones.

Her barrister said Ms Underwood had suffered 'severe mental distress,' telling the judge, 'This included the breakdown of her marriage and significant debt caused by the ongoing issues, feelings of entrapment, embarrassment and despair.

'The evidence shows that the Kingston shop was intended to be a flagship boutique, a source of pride and professional achievement but was instead marred by persistent disrepair and loss of reputation.

'The mental distress, discomfort, and ill health were a direct and foreseeable consequence of the defendants' breaches, as the persistent lack of repair made the premises unfit for their intended purpose.'

'Ms Underwood has throughout this time worked long hours in trying to run the business from two shops, with a small staff, and there was limited time she could devote to arranging a mass move out.

'The problems became such an everyday part of the claimants' existence that Ms Underwood did not realise the extent of her losses until after vacating the premises and taking legal advice.

'Witness statements...describe the daily reality of working in a hazardous, unpleasant, and embarrassing environment, including repeated water damage, hazardous electrics, and condemned basement facilities.

'Members of the staff were experiencing electric shocks when using the sockets.'

Ms Underwood and the company are suing Muhammad Azam as freehold owner of the building and Areeb Azam as the head leaseholder, and both as the owners of the two adjoining flats where some of the alleged leaks originated.

Ms Kocharova argued they had breached obligations as the landlords by not taking reasonable steps to prevent parts of the building from falling into disrepair, causing water ingress.

'The claimants' case is that the loss and damage complained of was caused not only by the defendants' breaches of contract and leasehold covenants, but also by their failure to exercise reasonable care in relation to those retained and adjoining parts of the building,' she said.

The landlords should have understood that, if the shop was affected by leaks and damp, then stock could be damaged and the business would suffer.

'The losses claimed in respect of damaged wedding dresses and related stock are therefore not too remote, but are the natural and foreseeable consequence of the disrepair,' she said.

'It is noted, with relation to wedding dresses, that stock has had to be sold at an undervalue not only due to direct damage, but also due to items going out of fashion while in storage.'

For the landlords, barrister Ben Maltz argued that the 'express and unequivocal wording' of the lease made it clear that the let premises did not include the basement area.

Any issues relating to the flat roof, awning or shop fascia would also be the responsibility of the tenant, since they were part of the physical features of the building.

In terms of the claim against the landlords as owners of the adjoining flats, he said it would require there to have been a use of the flats which caused detriment to the shop, or some negligence by the owners.

'It is submitted that there is no clear evidence that the leaks from the flats were connected to the same recurring issue/defect,' he said.

'The lapse of time between leak events suggests different causes. Indeed, Ms Underwood accepts that the first leak from Flat 4, on June 9, 2017, was caused by a tenant's child having left a bath running.

'As regards the leaks from Flat 1, it is submitted that there is no cogent evidence that the three leaks over a period of four years had the same cause.

'The gaps in time between each of these leaks and the fact that the third leak was in a different location...indicate that there was no persistent or recurring leak from Flat 1 in respect of which the defendant can be held liable in nuisance and/or negligence.

'Indeed, the third leak was caused by concealed failed pipework, which had to be accessed by the defendants' workmen cutting into the ceiling of the premises to locate and remedy, after which the hole in the ceiling was boarded over.'

Dampness in the basement and water penetration through the flat roof were also already known about when the lease was signed, so cannot form a claim for nuisance or negligence damages, he said.

Mr Maltz also questioned whether the figures Ms Underwood had given for lost dresses and lost profits were correct, pointing out that she has not submitted evidence of such in many cases.

The landlords are also counterclaiming for payment of £28,000 outstanding rent and another £10,855 they say is due under the terms of the tenancy.

The trial continues.