CA-2025-001477 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1360

Fecha: 29-Oct-2025

Discussion and Conclusion

11.4

Discussion and Conclusion

59.

Ultimately, it seems to me that this debate came down to a matter of case management. That is because it is now common ground that:

(a)

This head of claim was set out in the RRRAPOC at paragraph 25.2.2.

(b)

The Schedule of Loss wholly failed to set out a proper claim for lost rent. It did not identify the actual rent charged throughout the period; the rent that could have been obtained but for the defects; and the difference between the two. It does not even provide an estimated figure for the lost rent, let alone a properly calculated figure.

(c)

If Disputed Head 4 is to be advanced, a proper pleading was and is required.

60.

In those circumstances, what to do about the Wilsons’ errors and omissions becomes a question of case management. One option open to the judge was to indicate that the current pleading was inadequate and that particulars needed to be provided by a specified date. Another option was to strike out the obviously deficient pleading and wait for a proper substitute.

61.

The judge took the latter course. That was a case management decision that was plainly open to him. It is not for this court to interfere and to suggest that he could have done it in a slightly different way. In any event, given that the Schedule of Loss was so riddled with deficiencies, the judge’s decision not to keep alive one small part of it in the hope of something better in the future was entirely justified.