Laidley (by his Litigation Friend, The Official Solicitor) (Appellant) v Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd (Respondent)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0155

Parties

Appellant(s)

Steven Laidley

Respondent(s)

Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd

Issue

(1) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to hold that there is no generally applicable duty upon a judge to disclose advice, information or evaluative assistance provided by an assessor appointed under s114(7) Equality Act 2010? (2) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to conclude that the assessor had the skill and experience necessary to assist the court on the matters identified by the County Court judge in his judgment? (3) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to find that the decisions of the courts below were not wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity?

Facts

Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd (‘MHT’) is a social landlord and the owner of a block of flats in London. One of the flats is currently occupied by Mr Laidley, who has been the periodic assured tenant of the flat since August 2009. Mr Laidley has been diagnosed with a delusional disorder. He lacks capacity to conduct these proceedings, and the Official Solicitor therefore appears on his behalf. Since 2018, Mr Laidley’s neighbour has complained that Mr Laidley repeatedly and persistently bangs on the wall which divides their two properties, creating a disturbance. Mr Laidley’s neighbour is an elderly man living alone, and suffers from ill health. In March 2020, MHT issued a claim for possession. The claim was initially stayed as a result of the Covid pandemic, but was eventually listed for trial in April 2023. Mr Laidley defended the claim, and counter-claimed on the basis that MHT’s claim discriminated against him on the grounds of disability, contrary to the Equality Act 2010. The County Court judge (HHJ Luba KC) sat with an Equality Act assessor appointed by the court (Ms Tombs). On the first day of the trial, the judge refused an application made on behalf of Mr Laidley for the court to define the role of the assessor and for the assessor’s advice to be given in open court. Following the trial, the judge allowed MHT’s claim for possession and ordered Mr Laidley to give possession of the flat by 2 February 2024. Mr Laidley appealed to the High Court. The possession order was stayed pending the determination of his appeal. Mr Laidley argued on appeal that the judge below was wrong (1) not to order the disclosure of Ms Tombs’ advice, (2) to seek her advice on proportionality and legitimate aim, and (3) not to rely on her advice in relation to the issues of whether Mr Laidley was disabled or whether MHT had breached its public sector equality duty under s149 Equality Act 2010. The High Court and the Court of Appeal heard and dismissed Mr Laidley’s appeal. Mr Laidley now appeals to the Supreme Court.