Memery Crystal acts on successful High Court appeal

The client initially brought his claim in August 2020, seeking a declaration that his landlord had unreasonably withheld its consent for alterations to the client’s Primrose Hill property. The landlord had objected to the works due to concerns over fire safety, arguing that they would not comply with Building Regulations and suggesting that the client’s Approved Inspector had been wrong to certify them as safe.

During a four-day trial at the end of 2022, the landlord and its appointed building surveyor unexpectedly changed course. They suggested instead that their concerns over fire safety went beyond mere compliance with Building Regulations, and related to the integrity of the building fabric. The judge at first instance accepted this argument and held that the refusal of consent had therefore been reasonable.

Recognising that this argument had not been made in any of the pleadings or evidence before trial, the client appealed the judge’s decision. Following a further hearing in the High Court in January, the client’s appeal was upheld. The court found that it was not open to the lower judge to decide the case on a point that had not been pleaded by the landlord, which would go against the “adversarial” nature of English civil litigation. The High Court also found that, if this was the basis of the landlord’s refusal of consent, it would have been unreasonable in any case because the landlord had ignored its own surveyor’s advice to seek a further, expert opinion on fire safety.

Liam Bell commented:

“This is a fantastic outcome for our client, who endured years of unnecessary litigation at the hands of his landlord. Perhaps more importantly, the High Court has confirmed in the strongest possible terms that the English legal system is not “inquisitorial” in nature; parties are entitled to know the case they must meet, and it is not open to the court to decide a claim on a point that has not been argued by the parties themselves. This is a cornerstone of the way claims are litigated and should be borne in mind at all times by solicitors, counsel, clients and judges.”

Jacobs v Chalcot Crescent (Management) Company Ltd [2024] EWHC 259 (Ch) was heard by Mr Justice Fancourt. Tom Morris of Landmark Chambers was instructed as counsel for the client.