BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions >> Leveritt v London Borough of Hackney [2025] EWHC 1415 (Ch) (30 May 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2025/1415.html
Cite as: [2025] EWHC 1415 (Ch)

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

WARNING: Reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.

Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWHC 1415 (Ch)
Ref. L05EC299 and PT-2025-000544

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
CHANCERY DIVISION

7 Rolls Buildings
Fetter Lane
London
30th May 2025

B e f o r e :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE RAJAH
____________________

IN THE MATTER OF
THOMAS LEVERITT (Claimant)
- v -
LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY (Defendant)

____________________

THE CLAIMANT appeared in person
MR E BLAKENEY appeared on behalf of the Defendant

____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT (AS APPROVED)
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

    MR JUSTICE RAJAH

  1. This is the application of the London Borough of Hackney for an extension of time to comply with, or for a variation of the time limit in, an order which was made in proceedings in the Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court on 14 March 2025 by District Judge Beecham. That order required the London Borough of Hackney to carry out specified work by a deadline of 31 May 2025 and other specified work by a deadline on 30 June 2025. This is work to a property the freehold of which is in the London Borough of Hackney and a long lease of which is in the claimant - Mr Leveritt. Mr Leveritt has appeared today in person. He has prepared a skeleton argument which is clear and he has been brief and helpful in his submissions to the court.
  2. There are ongoing proceedings brought by Mr Leveritt against the London Borough of Hackney in the Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court for damages for disrepair. In those proceedings Mr Leveritt applied for an injunction requiring specific works to be done. That resulted in the order of 14 March 2025 by District Judge Beecham. That order has a penal notice attached to it and it is a penal notice which specifically cites that it is the CEO of the London Borough of Hackney who will be in contempt if the order is not complied with. I am told by counsel and by Mr Leveritt that the penal notice was a matter of some discussion and a specific determination by the district judge that it should be included on the order. I do not know what the thinking was on the part of the district judge for the specific inclusion of a penal notice and the identification of the CEO. Mr Blakeney who appears on behalf of the London Borough of Hackney accepts that its purpose was ultimately to ensure compliance with the order.
  3. The Borough's application is supported by the evidence of Ms Quesha Nicholls, a legal disrepair officer at the Borough, who has prepared a witness statement with a number of exhibits. In paragraph 7 she says that following the injunction hearing the defendant began carrying out the works required by DJ Beecham's order but it has now become apparent that items 30 and 31 cannot be completed by 31 May 2025. Item 30 is to undertake repointing works using a lime based mortar. Item 31 says low level render coatings should be removed and replaced with coatings approved by the client.
  4. She says that this came to light on 16 May 2025 when the defendant's contractor identified that the brickwork was in a particularly poor state and that this was only discovered after the existing render was removed. It had not previously been evident and had not been evident on the inspection undertaken in October 2024.
  5. About a week later, on 23 May, a request was made for Mr Leveritt to consent. On the next day he refused and he gave reasons. I will come to those reasons in a moment but the reason for the delay between 16 and 23 May is not clear to me. Mr Blakeney says that things were happening and he points to a letter on 19 May from the structural engineer explaining the problem and saying they are relatively straightforward works but it might take a few weeks to complete it and then a few days later a very short email from a Mr Spindlow which says: "Brickwork is spoiled and will require refacing. This job was unforeseen and will take around two weeks to complete. We are certain this additional work will be completed by 30 June". Both of these documents look to me like they were documents which were obtained to produce as part of an application or to record the problem but they are not any reason for why nothing else happened between 16 May and 23 May. The problem and how long it would take to fix it must have been obvious on 16 May.
  6. In any event, Mr Leveritt having refused to consent, this application was eventually made on 29 May although in fact I think it was issued today which is 30 May. I have been given an explanation as to the chronology of what has been happening, with the Borough's "team" convening on 27 May and eventually this application being made or issued today. It seems to me that there has been a very leisurely approach in circumstances where there was a fast approaching deadline.
  7. The result of that has been a mad scramble to get this application heard today. So the parties have issued an application to get this matter heard in Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court but the Court cannot deal with it until 10 June. They have gone to Central London County Court who have said that they are not willing to deal with it unless the action is transferred. So they have attended in the court vacation before the vacation duty High Court judge and it is now 3.55pm on Friday 30 May. The deadline for the work expires at 6 pm tomorrow, Saturday.
  8. On the question of jurisdiction I accept that there is jurisdiction for me to grant an extension of time in respect of this impending deadline. I think the appropriate procedure is to direct that these proceedings are transferred to the High Court now and after I make an order to be immediately transferred back to the Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court and for an application notice to be issued in this court which will be given a file number so that the order which is made can be sealed. Mr Blakeney has confirmed that the Borough will undertake to issue that application on Monday. That deals with jurisdiction.
  9. It comes down then to whether an extension of time should be given. Mr Leveritt's primary contention is that very little work has been done between the 14 March order and the first work beginning in earnest he says on 12 May. It is hardly surprising he says, that at the first hiccup in the works they are unable to comply with the order by 31 May. They have simply left it too late to do the works.
  10. Mr Blakeney has been unable to show me in Ms Nicholls' evidence a clear explanation of what works have been done or when they have been done. The way in which it is dealt with in Ms Nicholls' witness statement is perfunctory. Paragraph 7 says "The defendant began carrying out the works required by District Judge Beecham's order" but it does not say what works were done or when. Then in response to Mr Leveritt's criticisms, she says at 20A she says "Mr Leveritt said that there was two months of inaction by the London Borough of Hackney after the injunction order was granted, that however is incorrect and I attach at QN1 an email from the defendant's surveyor which sets out what has been done before and since the injunction order was granted". QN1 is an email which contains some 12 bullet points.
  11. I asked Mr Blakeney to take me through them and we rapidly reached point 6 without any evidence that anything had actually been done since the order. If one carries through and one looks at these bullets they seem mainly to be things like exhibited emails and photographs and one cannot tell from QN1, what, if any, work has been done or when. The last document is dated 15 April 2025 and no evidence as to what has happened since 15 April 2025.
  12. Mr Leveritt has effectively given me his evidence when he addressed the court, which is that very little was done in March and April. He says there was a full day's work on 14 March. At some point thereafter the Borough dug a small hole which he says is about an hour's work. There was a stitch drill into a wooden lintel, there was a second drain survey and that is the sum total of the work in March and April. He says the first bricklayer arrived on 6 May and on 12 May work began in earnest. If he is right then there is a real question mark as to whether or not an extension of time should be granted.
  13. The period of time which the district judge set for the London Borough of Hackney to do those works was some three months and if the Borough chooses to commence the works in earnest two weeks before the hearing it can expect little sympathy from the court if it is not able to complete the works within that two weeks. The court gave the London Borough of Hackney three months.
  14. In the circumstances it seems to me there is not any satisfactory evidence which I have which persuades me that I can form a view as to what work has been done. What I have seen is consistent with what Mr Leveritt says, namely that very little has been done until the last two weeks. Added to that is the leisurely way in which this application has come to be made when the problem first arose on 16 May. I take that similarly into account in wondering why we are here on an urgent hearing with short notice to Mr Leveritt at the eleventh hour asking for an extension of time. There is very little prejudice caused to Mr Leveritt by the grant of an extension. He accepts that. However, it seems to me that to grant an extension is to whitewash this issue. If it is the Borough's own fault that they have not been able to comply with the order because they have taken too leisurely an approach, then why should the court grant an extension? If this is a problem of their own making then they should take the consequences of it.
  15. I am not in a position to judge that so I will leave it to the London Borough of Hackney to pursue the application it has already issued in the Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court which I am told will come up on 10 June. If the extension is granted, then it will be retrospective and that will mean there has not been an actionable breach of the order. But I am not willing to pre-empt that decision on the evidence which I have got. The evidence which I have got is all consistent with this having been approached in a pretty relaxed and leisurely manner.
  16. Mr Leveritt says that this application is the London Borough of Hackney weaponizing their incompetence and if what he says about their inaction is correct, I agree. So I am not going to grant an extension today. I am going to hear from both parties as to what can be done to ensure that until the application for an extension is heard no steps are taken to bring contempt proceedings.

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010