The Judgment
The Judgment
The judge dealt with Disputed Head 1 succinctly:
“22. Mr Wilson submitted that this head of claim falls within paragraph 25.2.1 of the POC. I do not agree. Whereas there are claims that leaseholders can properly advance under paragraph 25.2.1, this is not one of them. In my judgment, the Capital Losses are spurious. Mr and Mrs Wilson are seeking to claim damages representing alleged diminutions in value of the flats at specific past dates on the basis of defects identified at those dates, despite the fact that they retained the flats thereafter. The flats were not sold on these dates or, indeed, at all. The alleged losses were not sustained. This head of claim will be struck out.”
- Heading
- LORD JUSTICE COULSON
- 2.The Background Facts
- The Pleaded Case
- The Wilsons’ Schedule of Loss
- The Judgment
- The Applicable Principles
- The Seven Disputed Heads of Loss: General
- Disputed Head 1: Total Capital Losses The Pleaded Claim
- The Judgment
- The Argument Advanced Now
- Discussion and Conclusion
- Disputed Head 2: Investment Loss The Pleaded Claim
- The Judgment
- The Argument Advanced Now
- Conclusion
- Disputed Head 3: Re-Investment Loss The Pleaded Claim
- The Judgment
- The Argument Advanced Now
- Conclusion
- Disputed Head 4: Rental Income Loss The Pleaded Case
- The Judgment
- Discussion and Conclusion
- Disputed Head 5: Secured Borrowing Loss The Pleaded Claim
- The Judgment
- The Argument Advanced Now
- 4 Conclusion
- Disputed Head 6: Indemnity
- Disputed Head 7: Taxation/ IHT 1 The Pleaded Claim
- The Judgment
- The Argument Advanced Now
- Conclusion
- Conclusions
![CA-2025-001477 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1360](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_Sjvxvlx.png)