Steven Laidley v Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

An assessor’s role depends on the nature of the dispute and the assistance required. Where an assessor provides evidence or expert factual material, disclosure to the parties will normally be required. Where the assessor assists the judge in evaluating evidence already before the court, there is no general duty of disclosure, although fairness may require disclosure if the assessor introduces new evidence or an unanticipated point. The court retains a wide discretion over the use of an assessor. Proportionality may involve a mixed evaluation of fact and law, on which an appropriately qualified assessor may assist.

The appellant was an assured periodic tenant of a social housing flat. The landlord obtained a possession order under Grounds 12 and 14 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988, following findings of persistent nuisance associated with the appellant’s mental health condition.

The County Court had appointed an Equality Act assessor. It refused to disclose the assessor’s advice and later relied on the assessor to assist with evaluating proportionality. The appellant appealed the refusal of disclosure and the alleged misuse of the assessor. The central issues were the proper role of an assessor appointed under section 114(7) of the Equality Act 2010 and whether fairness required disclosure of the advice.

1. Appeals dismissed. The possession order and the refusal to disclose the assessor’s advice were upheld.

2. Section 114(7) of the Equality Act 2010 required the appointment of an assessor unless there were good reasons not to do so. Once appointed under section 63(1) of the County Courts Act 1984, however, the judge retained a wide discretion under section 63(1) and CPR 35.15 as to the assessor’s role.

3. There was no universal rule governing disclosure. In cases where the assessor performed an evidential function by providing expert, scientific, technical or factual material, disclosure would normally be required so that the parties could make submissions. Where the assessor merely assisted the judge to understand or evaluate evidence already given by the parties, no general duty of disclosure arose. Disclosure could nevertheless be required where the assessor supplied new evidence or raised an issue which the parties had not had an opportunity to address.

4. The assessor’s role here was evaluative. By trial, disability and the relationship between the appellant’s conduct and his disability were common ground. The remaining issue was whether the landlord’s conduct was proportionate in pursuit of legitimate aims. That involved weighing the evidence concerning nuisance, the landlord’s attempts to obtain support, and the consequences of eviction. The assessor was qualified to assist with that mixed question of fact and law.

5. Speculation that the assessor might have supplied undisclosed evidence could not justify disclosure. Nothing in the trial judgment indicated that the judge relied on material other than the evidence adduced by the parties. The challenge to the assessor’s use in relation to the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 also failed.

• Chancery Appeals, High Court: appeals against the County Court’s assessor order and possession order dismissed.
• County Court at Central London sitting at Willesden: possession ordered after trial under Grounds 12 and 14 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988.