HT-2019-CDF-000012 - [2025] EWHC 1315 (TCC)

Paragraph 25 of the re-re-re-amended particulars of claim (for convenience, “the POC”), filed on behalf of all the claimants and drafted by Mr Sawtell, sets out the heads of loss alleged on the part of the leaseholder claimants. Paragraph 25.1B alleges loss in respect of the obligation under the leases to contribute by way of service charges to the costs incurred by CMCL in consequence of the defects at the Development. Paragraph 25.2 provides:

“Further, the Claimants have suffered (the quantum of which will be confirmed by the service in due course of a schedule of loss in respect of each Claimant):

25.2.1

Diminution in the value of the Flats and will suffer such diminution notwithstanding the remedy of the defective works;

25.2.2

Loss of rental income;

25.2.3

Damage to their health by reason of the development of mould and damp within the Flats;

25.2.4

Inconvenience and distress.

25.2.5

Decanting costs (including the costs of alternative accommodation and storage) if the Claimants have to be decanted from the buildings during the remedial works.”

Redrow accepts that the schedules of loss served on behalf of the leaseholder claimants represented by Walker Morris LLP are largely consistent with the case advanced in the POC and it has not applied for any relief in respect of those schedules.

Paragraph 51 of Mr and Mrs Wilson’s Schedule of Loss sets out their claimed losses in a table in two parts: the first part states particular figures with reference to each flat in turn; the second part sets out unparticularised losses. The preceding paragraphs of the Schedule of Loss set out the factual basis for the claims made in the table. For convenience, I shall reproduce the table as an appendix to this judgment. The heads of claim in the first part of the table are as follows:

Redrow does not seek an order striking out the claims for Service Charge Loss and for Interest Loss. However, it does seek an order striking out the other heads or summarily dismissing them. The first point it makes is that none of those other heads is pleaded in the POC. Mr Singer readily accepted that, in an appropriate case, this point might be answered by permitting an amendment of the particulars of claim. However, he submitted that the heads of claim advanced in the present case were either for clearly unrecoverable or purely speculative or imaginary losses or advanced so vaguely and unclearly that they could not support an amendment, even if (as is not the case) an amendment were sought. I shall consider the heads of claim one by one. For the precise formulation of the claim in each case, I refer to the Appendix.