HT-2022-000254 - [2025] EWHC 105 (TCC)

In support of the application, I had the evidence in two witness statements of David Hitchcock, a partner of the applicants’ solicitors (TWM Solicitors LLP), and a statement of Adam Creasey, managing director of the respondents’ solicitors (Adam Benedict Ltd.) to which I have already referred.

Following the conclusion of the hearing, Mr Creasey obtained a number of documents, as I understand it from the Land Registry and publicly available, which related to the facts of this application but had not previously been exhibited or included in the application bundle. On 1 August 2024, he wrote to Mr Hitchcock at TWM for the purpose of expanding upon issues raised at the hearing and inviting the applicants to reconsider their position. This appears to have been after he obtained the further documents. TWM responded on 8 August stating that all the matters expanded upon had already been fully ventilated in the hearing before me and, in any event, that the letter demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal issues. TWM said that there was no basis on which these matters should be referred to the court again and that, if the respondents sought to do so, TWM would object in the strongest terms.

Because of the court vacation, there was no correspondence with the court until 4 October 2024. At that point, Adam Benedict Ltd. wrote to the court (by two e-mails and filing on CE-file) attaching the correspondence in August and a number of documents including title documents and the lease of 17 Corben Mews. TWM repeated their objection to these documents being put before the court and/or considered. The obvious difficulty with this sort of argument in inter-solicitor correspondence is that it is impossible for the court to know whether there is anything that could or should be had regard to without reading the correspondence. I have, therefore, done so. I accept TWM’s position that the correspondence restates, perhaps in slightly different terms, submissions that had already been made and developed before me. In that sense, it adds nothing for me to consider. The documentation fleshes out the evidence but no more than that and, to the extent that it is helpful in completing the factual picture, I refer to it below.