HT-2022-000311 & HT-2022-000254 - [2024] EWHC 3179 (TCC)

In addressing the individual leaseholders’ losses, I have referred to the cross-examination and the evidence that they gave about giving Click St Andrews access to the Property. It was very much a theme of Mr Emmett’s cross-examination to suggest that Click St Andrews had been refused access to properties and that, if they had been allowed proper access, they would have carried out remedial works promptly.

In closing submissions, Mr Emmett pointed to documents that recorded two instances in 2022 of workmen being told that they could not enter flat 11 “without consent”, culminating in the locks being changed, and one instance of the party wall surveyor being refused access to flat 13. In a note for the court, Mr Emmett also pointed to an e-mail from Mr Creasey on 17 February 2022 that stated that workmen had carried out work in flat 13 in direct contradiction of instruction from Mr Price. That contradicts Mr Price’s evidence but it was not put to him for an explanation and it does not, in fact, demonstrate that Click St Andrews were unable to gain access. Any other alleged evidence of refusal to allow access was self-serving and emanated from Click St Andrews and/or Mr Emmett. Having heard the evidence of the witnesses, I cannot see any merit in the submission that they failed to mitigate their losses. There was no evidence that a policy of refusing access was adopted and the leaseholders cannot be criticised for seeking to maintain some kind of control over access to their homes. In any case, by October 2022, Click St Andrews had ceased to carry out any remedial works.