Laidley v Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (2024) EWHC 2611 (Ch) (Copy of judgment. Not on Bailii or National Archives yet)
This was the joined hearing of two appeals from a possession claim on grounds of anti social behaviour. Mr Laidley had an assured tenancy from Metropolitan from 2009. There had been complaints of anti social behaviour and Metropolitan brought possession proceedings.
Mr L was diagnosed with delusional disorder and lacked litigation capacity. The Official Solicitor was appointed as litigation friend. Mr L defended on the Equality Act amongst other points.
The County Court appointed an assessor to sit with the Judge at trial. At the start of the trial, Mr L applied for the Court to a) set out the role of the assessor, and b) that the assessor’s advice be given in open court. THis was refused but the trial adjourned part heard. Mr L appealed that decision.
At the further trial hearing, a possession order was made. Mr L also appealed that order.
Both appeals were joined. The High Court held:
a) Whether an assessor’s advice needs to be disclosed depends upon the unction of that advice. If the assessor is effectively providing evidence to the court, that advice and evidence should be disclosed to the parties. However, where the role of the assessor was to assist the Judge in evaluating or understanding the evidence, this did not fall to be disclosed, there was not duty to disclose under CPR 35.15, and so it would not be unless fairness demanded it.
b) In this case, the role of the assessor was to assist the Judge in the evaluation and assessment of evidence as to the whether the possession claim was a proportionate pursuit of a legitimate aim. It did not require disclosure.
c) The Judge had correctly used the assessor on the issue of proportionality, so it was likely the assessor had also advised on the Public Sector Equality Duty, but use of the assessor was within the discretion of the Judge.
The appeals were dismissed.
We understand that permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal has been sought.
Comment
I think there is a bit of an issue here. While the evidence/assistance distinction might make formal sense, there are clearly going to be grey areas. By this judgment, it would be left to the Judge as to where that boundary lay and hence the decision on disclosure or not. But even beyond that, there is a view on which any assistance that a Judge receives on assessing and evaluating evidence ought to be transparent to the parties.