Coombs v Hayes & Anor [2025] EWHC 1859 (KB) (21 July 2025)

Coombs v Hayes & Anor [2025] EWHC 1859 (KB) (21 July 2025)

The applicant failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that any disrepair for which the respondents were responsible caused the flooding or vermin infestation leading to her business losses. The judge was entitled to find that the evidence did not support causation or breach of lease obligations. Procedural irregularities alleged did not render the trial unfair or affect the outcome. The applicant also failed to prove her claimed losses with sufficient evidence.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 1859 (KB)
Parties
Applicant/claimant: Susan Coombs; Respondents/defendants: Mr and Mrs Hayes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (renewed Oral Application for Permission to Appeal) / High Court, King's Bench Division, Post Trial, Permission to Appeal Refused
Outcome
Renewed application for permission to appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Breach of Lease, Repairing Obligations, Quiet Enjoyment, Counterclaim for Rent Arrears, Procedural Fairness, Expert Evidence, Causation of Loss
Landlord and Tenant Contract Civil Procedure Breach of Lease Repairing Obligations Quiet Enjoyment Counterclaim for Rent Arrears Procedural Fairness +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Susan Coombs

Applicant/claimant

Mr and Mrs Hayes

Respondents/defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (renewed Oral Application for Permission to Appeal) / High Court, King's Bench Division, Post Trial, Permission to Appeal Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge misapplied legal principles regarding repairing obligations under the lease
  2. 2 Whether the judge reversed the burden of proof or applied a negligence standard to a contractual claim
  3. 3 Whether procedural irregularities (exclusion from expert inspection, bundle management) rendered the trial unfair

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that any disrepair for which the respondents were responsible caused the flooding or vermin infestation leading to her business losses. The judge was entitled to find that the evidence did not support causation or breach of lease obligations. Procedural irregularities alleged did not render the trial unfair or affect the outcome. The applicant also failed to prove her claimed losses with sufficient evidence.

Court Disposition

Renewed application for permission to appeal dismissed.