Campbell v PCHA

A consent order will not ordinarily be set aside where the party understood the relevant facts and was not misled. A landlord’s statutory gas-safety duty to inspect is not displaced merely because the tenant is not using gas at the premises. Related proceedings do not automatically require an injunction application to be consolidated or deferred; case management remains a matter for the judge’s discretion. Costs are also discretionary. Where material correspondence was unavailable or insufficiently considered, the appellate court may interfere with the order and substitute a proportionate costs award.

The claimant, a tenant, appealed an order made by HH Judge Copley in the Willesden County Court. The order permitted the respondent housing association, its servants, agents and contractors to enter the premises to inspect the gas installations and awarded the respondent £1,000 in costs.

The first part of the order had been consented to, although the order inaccurately recorded both parts as being by consent. Permission was later granted to appeal the access order as well as the costs order. The claimant relied on existing possession proceedings and argued that an inspection was unnecessary because no gas had been used at the property since 2006. The central issues were whether the consent order should be disturbed, whether the injunction application should have been deferred or consolidated, and whether the costs award was justified.

1. Access order. The appeal against the first paragraph failed. The claimant had agreed to the inspection order, and there was no suggestion that she had been misled or was ignorant of any relevant fact. The consent order therefore provided no basis for appellate interference.
2. The existence of separate possession proceedings and a counterclaim did not require the injunction application to be consolidated with, or deferred until, those proceedings. On the information available to the county court, and in the circumstances known to the appellate court, it was within the judge’s discretion to treat the application as free-standing and determine the narrow issue of access.
3. The landlords remained under a duty to inspect the gas appliances for safety notwithstanding that no gas was being used at the premises. The absence of gas use was therefore not a reason to refuse the access order.
4. Costs. The county court judge had a wide discretion under Part 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. However, correspondence showing the background to the claimant’s position had not evidently been read or fully considered. Had it been available, the judge would probably have awarded only a modest proportion of the costs. The £1,000 award was reduced to £150.
5. The appeal accordingly succeeded only in relation to costs. The claimant was ordered to pay £1,499 for the costs of the appeal, having rejected a reasonable offer by the respondent to vary the order to provide no order as to costs.

• High Court (Queen's Bench Division): The appeal from the order of HH Judge Copley dated 21 April 2009 was allowed in part. The access order was upheld, but the costs award was reduced from £1,000 to £150.
• Willesden County Court: Ordered access for gas inspection and repairs, and awarded the respondent £1,000 costs.