EFLASH: Laidley v. Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited [2025] EWCA Civ
The Court of Appeal held that where an assessor's contribution is to the evaluation of the evidence in the case, no obligation of disclosure would normally be required. However, where an assessor goes beyond contributing to the evaluation of the evidence and either (a) provides additional evidence or (b) otherwise gives rise to a new line of enquiry of which the parties had not had proper notice and a fair opportunity to respond, disclosure is required.
Mr Toby Vanhegan and Ms Stephanie Smith appeared for the appellant in both the Court of Appeal and the High Court, and Toby also represented him in the county court. They were instructed by G T Stewart Solicitors.
The appellant was assured tenant of the respondent. One of his neighbours complained of persistent banging from his flat. In 2020 the respondent brought possession proceedings relying upon grounds 12 and 14 in Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988. The appellant raised an Equality Act defence and counterclaim. He suffers from delusional disorder, is disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act and lacks capacity and was represented by the Official Solicitor.
The court appointed an assessor to sit with the Judge at the trial. At the start of the trial, the appellant applied for the assessor's role to be agreed, and for disclosure of any advice that she gave to the Judge during the trial. That application was refused, and the appellant appealed. The trial continued and the Judge made a possession order. The appellant appealed that order.
Both appeals were joined in the High Court. Permission was granted for the appellant to argue two grounds. First, disclosure should have been provided of the assessor's advice and evidence. Secondly, the Judge had wrongly used the assessor. Bacon J. dismissed the appeal on both grounds.
The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal on the same two grounds. Permission was granted for both. On 1 April 2025 the appeal was heard by Lady Justice King, Lord Justice Nugee, and Lord Justice Stuart Smith who gave the leading judgment. The Court held that the role of the assessor was suitably and sufficiently defined. Where an assessor's contribution is to the evaluation of the evidence in the case, no obligation of disclosure would normally be required, However, where an assessor goes beyond contributing to the evaluation of the evidence and either (a) provides additional evidence or (b) otherwise gives rise to a new line of enquiry of which the parties had not had proper notice and a fair opportunity to respond, disclosure is required. Those principles may need to be adjusted in a particular case if there is a compelling reason to do so.
The Court held that in this case, the assessor assisted the Judge in the evaluation of the evidence, and there was no need for disclosure. The Judge asked the assessor about proportionality and legitimate aim. There was no basis for assuming or speculating that she contributed to the evaluation of the case inappropriately or strayed beyond her proper areas of experience and expertise. She also assisted with the public sector equality duty. Whether and the extent to which she was asked to contribute was a matter for the Judge.
The appeal was therefore dismissed on both grounds. The appellant is now seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Read the approved judgment here.
