Trident House Development Limited v Mohammed Yousaf [2025] EWHC 344 (Ch)

“The building comprises a 7 storey structure with the two lower levels forming half basement levels. The external walls are made out of sandstone with feature band courses, stone window heads and cills and the proportion of the openings give the building a vertical emphasis. Galem House was subject to a significant fire which destroyed the middle third of the building through all the floors resulting in the loss of part of the roof through which rain has entered the building for many years.”

“The project occupies a strategic position within the Goitside conservation Area between the Bradford Learning Quarter (that houses the Bradford College and Bradford University campuses) and the council’s primary city centre regeneration area known as “City Village”

“This Notice advises the owner that the building or structure at Galem House 3-5 Vincent Street Bradford West Yorkshire is deemed to be in such a dangerous state that immediate action is required to remove the danger to the building or the Council may take immediate action to remove the danger…”

“As part of the Galem House re-development, the section of existing wall which runs between Sunbridge Apartments and Woolston Apartments [(that is, Galem House wall)] has been demolished due to its poor and unsafe condition. … This section of wall has had to be demolished due to its poor condition and safety concerns.”

“The change in design and construction methodology has impacted the project cost and programme. Cost and time implications Due to the poor condition of the building structure, a full façade retention system was designed and installed in the building. The façade retention cost is calculated based on the weekly hire cost of each component of the system which is £11k per week. The façade retention can only be dismantled once the permanent steel frame is fully installed. The designed steel frame is reliant on fixing into the existing structure to tie in all the building perimeter walls. In simple terms, the steel beams are designed to sit on pad stones that are situated in the premiere walls [(including the Galem House wall, according to a structural plan prepared by Clancy Consulting Ltd for Trident)]. The delay in progressing the work on the car park wall means that the steel frame in that corner of the building cannot be completed without having a wall to fix the steel members to, hence the following points summarise the impact on the project: • Extending the hire of the façade retention system as the removal of it is only permissible when the steel frame is fully erected. … • The designed steel frame provides an additional two floors to the building and is fully dependent on the completion of the steel frame within the existing building, this means that the phasing of the works will have to also include the additional top two floors which was not factored into the quote and programme submitted by the steel erectors. … Conclusion Not being able to obtain access through the car park land is impacting the project significantly…The cost of the project is increasing day by day as access to the car park land is unknown. Not being able to gain access and complete the work means that the project could not be completed and all the cost spent to date on the project would be a loss to the Employer. The façade retention system will have to stay in place to keep the building safe as the permanent structure is not sufficient as it stands and therefore the running cost of hiring the façade retention components and the maintenance cost to maintain the structural integrity. …The project team has exhausted all possible options and they all require access to the car park for minimum safety requirements, the time and cost implications would render the project an unviable development.”

“A party may not rely on any document which he fails to disclose or in respect of which he fails to permit inspection unless the court gives permission.”

“The trial shall proceed on the issue of causation only, namely whether the Defendant’s tortious conduct has caused delay to the completion of the Claimant’s project to refurbish Galem House and, if so, by how long.”

“For the period from 25 January 2024 to 20 February 2024 the Claimant’s contractors were unable to carry out works to part of Galem House using the Claimant’s scaffolding or at all. Further, in the same period the Claimant’s contractors were unable to carry out works to Galem House because (i) the New Wall was attached to the Claimant’s Wall with masonry wall ties; and (ii) the New Wall was in an unsafe condition and/or at risk of collapse and/or causing damage to Galem House and injury to persons thereon. PARTICULARS OF SPECIAL DAMAGE Loss suffered as a result of disruption and delays to construction works - estimated at around £45,000 per week from 25 January 2024 and continuing until the trespass and nuisance ceased on 20 February 2024.”

“Mega Shore Towers - Rate (weekly): £7,551.21 No. of days [claimed for]: 28…Amount: £30,204.84 Particulars of Damages: Cost of maintaining the mega shore structural component of the façade retention scheme during the period of time that the project was unable to continue. Explanation of how each matter complained of caused or contributed to the loss claimed: Cost of maintaining the Mega Shore component of the façade retention scheme.”

“I am writing to formally notify you of a delay in the construction works… Details of Delay The delay relates to the demolition and rebuilding of the car park wall… The demolition work was forced to halt on 24th January 2024 due to the adjoining owner building his wall during the period of the internal demolition, and the work resumed on 21st February 2024. This interruption has led to an extension of the construction timeline and may affect the agreed completion date. … Proposed Actions We are currently reassessing the construction program to determine the full impact of this delay on the overall project schedule. Any necessary revisions to the program and cost implications will be communicated to you promptly for your review and approval. … Cost Implication: TBD Time Implication: TBD …”

“The exclusion zone inside Galem House had to be located where there had been the sole means of access and egress for machinery to the site. As a result, the Claimant was unable to continue with its works to the Car Park side of Galem House until a new access point could be created. The Claimant instead was forced to turn its attention to carry out works to the external façade of the building on Vincent Street while two further access sites were created into the building to allow some works to persist. The access sites were limited to contractors only rather than machinery, as these access points were at high levels and meant that the works that could continue to the internal site were very limited in nature. Further, as the internal areas of Galem House were still in the process of deconstruction, a large part of the wall had timber beams that could not be removed such that the works of deconstruction were out of sequence and would have involved significant additional costs to continue.”

“The project is not expected to achieve any profit on completion. The Claimant and Coverstone Investments Limited had undertaken the project to form part of a long-term rental portfolio.”

“The Claimant is developing Galem House without any expectation of profit…”

“…The change was to omit four windows in the wall on the ground and lower ground floors in response to the Defendant’s vehement opposition to the inclusion of windows (although the wall will still contain windows on the upper floors). Having windows on the ground and lower ground floors would serve no useful purpose as they would look directly onto the immediately adjacent car park wall, and their inclusion has led to a misunderstanding that the Claimant is seeking to insert windows into the Defendant’s wall, which is not the case.”

“…The Claimant’s contractors have been able to carry out the demolition of the Wall without access through the Car Park. They are however unable to rebuild the Wall without access and as a result the Project will soon grind to a halt unless access is obtained. Without access the steel frame in the corner of Galem House that adjoins the Car Park cannot be completed as there will be no wall to which the steel members can be affixed.”

“Negotiations with Mr Yousaf for an access licence to carry out the works by accessing the Car Park became protracted and so we considered alternative ways to demolish the wall of Galem House that abutted the Car Park (the “Galem House Wall”) in order to remove the danger, as required by the Notice. The initial demolition method had assumed that we would be able to obtain access through the Car Park. We did not anticipate that we would encounter any issues in agreeing the terms of access as Trident was willing to pay a generous sum for the access. The design involved erecting scaffolding in the Car Park directly underneath the Galem House Wall, creating an exclusion zone and taking down the wall brick-by-brick and transferring the bricks to a skip situated close by within the Car Park by using a chute attached to the scaffold. In order to execute this method, an exclusion zone would have been required to cordon off an area of the Car Park to ensure that no car park users or members of the public would be harmed in the process. Once it became obvious that an access licence with Mr Yousaf would not be agreed, Trident’s design team revised the methodology so that the Galem House Wall could be demolished from within Galem House. The redesigned methodology involved installation of scaffolding within Galem House all the way to the top of the Wall and removing the Wall brick-by-brick. This was not the preferred method due to the ` would take to dismantle the wall and dispose of the bricks since it would no longer be possible to position the skip within Galem House or transfer the bricks using a chute due to the limited amount of space”

“Part of my role as Project manager for the redevelopment of Galem House is to monitor and record the costs, both estimated and incurred, and report these to Trident as the designated contract administrator. …Once the New Wall had been taken down, I was able to calculate the overall delay on the Project, including the delay caused by the building of the New Wall as well as the delays caused by the lack of access through the car park to rebuilding the Galem House Wall. … Demolition of the Galem House Wall stopped on 24 January 2024…and works to the wall did not recommence until 21 February 2024. The works to demolish the Galem House Wall were estimated to take around four weeks to complete. As the demolition had to stop and the exclusion zone had to be erected within Galem House for safety reasons, no works could continue to be carried out to the Galem House Wall at all. Other works to the remainder of Galem House were carried out during this period but no works could be carried out to the Galem House Wall whatsoever during this period. Due to the amount of time that the works to the Galem House Wall would take and the different methodology that had to be used to demolish the wall, it was not possible for this additional delay to be absorbed in the remainder of the Project. Consequently, this additional time must be added to the end of the Project delaying completion…”

“…No work could be carried out in the exclusion zone and no personnel or machinery was permitted to enter or pass through the exclusion zone.”

“(5) An access order may include provision requiring the applicant to pay the respondent such sum by way of consideration for the privilege of entering the servient land in pursuance of the order as appears to the court to be fair and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including, in particular - (a) the likely financial advantage of the order to the applicant and any persons connected with him; and (b) the degree of inconvenience likely to be caused to the respondent or any other person by the entry… (6) For the purposes of subsection (5)(a) above, the likely financial advantage of an access order to the applicant and any persons connected with him shall in all cases be taken to be a sum of money equal to…the amount (if any) by which so much of any likely increase in the value of the dominant land,…as may reasonably be regarded as attributable to the carrying out of the specified works exceeds the likely cost of carrying out those works with the benefit of the access order…”

“It is trite law that the role of an expert is to assist the court in relation to matters of scientific, technical or other specialised knowledge which are outside the judge’s expertise by giving evidence of fact or opinion…”

“The skilled witness must demonstrate to the court that he or she has relevant knowledge and experience to give either factual evidence, which is not based exclusively on personal observation or sensation, or opinion evidence. Where the skilled witness establishes such knowledge and experience, he or she can draw on the general body of knowledge and understanding of the relevant expertise”

“The question then arises as to whether Mr Taylor is confined to giving evidence of fact, without including his expert opinion on matters. Alternatively, can he include statements of professional opinion bearing upon facts within his personal knowledge? This question arises in many fields of litigation, for example professional negligence actions where the defendant is a witness of fact but also wishes to justify his actions by drawing upon his professional experience. This question arises with particular frequency in litigation in the Technology and Construction Court. Most factual witnesses called are possessed of technical knowledge and expertise. In relation to major engineering projects (such as Wembley Stadium or the M6 Toll Road) those factual witnesses are likely to have very considerable expertise. Otherwise they would not have been engaged upon such projects in positions of responsibility. Despite the diligent researches of counsel, there is relatively little authority on the extent to which witnesses, who are possessed of special expertise, can gloss their factual evidence with expert comment. In Lusty v. Finsbury Securities Ltd (1991) 58 BLR 66 the Court of Appeal held that an architect suing for fees could give opinion evidence as to the value of his work. In DN v. LB Greenwich [2004] EWCA Civ 1659 the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against the trial judge’s finding that an educational psychologist had been negligent. One of the issues in the appeal concerned the admissibility of opinion evidence given by the psychologist. Brooke LJ said this: “25. It very often happens in professional negligence cases that a defendant will give evidence to a judge which constitutes the reason why he considers that his conduct did not fall below the standard of care reasonably to be expected of him. He may do this by reference to the professional literature that was reasonably available to him as a busy practitioner or be reference to reasonable limits of his professional experience; or he may seek to rebut, as one professional man against another, the criticisms made of him by the claimant’s expert(s). Such evidence is common, and it is certainly admissible. Mr Phillips, who appeared for the claimant at the trial, did not believe he had told the judge that Mr Moreland’s evidence on matters of this kind was inadmissible, and neither of the very experienced leading counsel who appeared in this counsel who appeared in this court was willing to support the judge’s view of the matter. Of course a defendant’s evidence on matters of this kind may lack the objectivity to be accorded to the evidence of an independent expert, but this consideration goes to the cogency of the evidence, not to its admissibility. That such evidence was in principle admissible should have been reasonably apparent from the judgments in this court in ES v. Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospital NHS Trust [2003] EWCA Civ 1284 at [24], [31]-[32] and [41], [2004] Lloyd’s Rep Med 90.”

“The science or art of delay analysis is one which is based in logic, albeit in a construction context. Thus, on a simple house construction, a delay in the provision of the foundations will, generally and obviously, cause delay to all the following trades so that for instance the brickwork and blockwork which may rest on the foundations in question cannot commence and the windows and the roof cannot go on until the brickwork and blockwork are done; that is logical and to be expected. However, the position becomes much more complex when one is looking at a building like the Shard. Certain it is that at least some steelwork has to be in place before follow on trades, such as concrete flooring and glazing or curtain walling, can be commenced; it is not the case that all the steelwork needs to be in place before such follow on trades can commence. Thus, the fact that the steel work is finished late does not, necessarily, mean that the overall project would be late.”

“Section 1. - Causation - The “but for” test of necessary contribution The test for whether a defendant’s wrongful conduct is a cause in fact of the damage to a claimant, which has almost universal acceptance, is the so-called “but for” test or test of “necessary contribution”

“The courts in conducting statutory interpretation are “seeking the meaning of the words which Parliament used”: Black-Clawson International Ltd v. Papierwerke Waldhof-Aschaffenburg AG [1975] AC 591, 613 per Lord Reid. More recently, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead stated: “Statutory interpretation is an exercise which requires the court to identify the meaning borne by the words in question in the particular context.” (R v. Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex p Spath Holme Ltd [2001] AC 349, 396). Words and passages in a statute derive their meaning from their context. A phrase or passage must be read in the context of the section as a whole and in the wider context of a relevant group of sections. Other provisions in a statute and the statute as a whole may provide the relevant context. They are the words which Parliament has chosen to enact as an expression of the purpose of the legislation and are therefore the primary source by which meaning is ascertained. There is an important constitutional reason for having regard primarily to the statutory context as Lord Nicholls explained in Spath Holme, p.397: “Citizens, with the assistance of their advisers, are intended to be able to understand parliamentary enactments, so that they can regulate their conduct accordingly. They should be able to rely upon what they read in an Act of Parliament.”

“The task of the court is often said to be to ascertain the intention of Parliament expressed in the language under consideration. This is correct and may be helpful, so long as it is remembered that the “intention of Parliament” is an objective concept, not subjective. The phrase is a shorthand reference to the intention which the court reasonably imputes to Parliament in respect of the language used. It is not the subjective intention of the minister or other persons who promoted the legislation. Nor is it the subjective intention of the draftsman, or of individual members or even of a majority of individual members of either House…Thus, when courts say that such-and-such a meaning “cannot be what Parliament intended”, they are saying only that the words under consideration cannot reasonably be taken as used by Parliament with that meaning.”

“…Where ordinary words are used in legislation it is well recognised that seeking to provide definitions of them can be a dangerous exercise, as glossing the statutory language by using other words runs the risk of those (non-statutory) words being treated as a substitute for the statutory words when they may not have quite the same meaning. Most English words have nuances of meaning and shades of usage that are not precisely captured by substituting other words. So one should be wary of trying to lay down a definition of ordinary words; the meaning of an ordinary word is to be found not so much in a dictionary but in how it is in fact ordinarily used, and I think it is generally more helpful to tease out the meaning of ordinary words by providing illustrative examples of how they are used in everyday contexts.”

“An access order requires the respondent, so far as he has power to do so, to permit the applicant or any of his associates to do anything which the applicant or associate is authorised or required to do under or by virtue of the order or this section.”

“If the court considers it fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, works may be regarded for the purposes of this Act as being reasonably necessary for the preservation of any land (or, for the purposes of subsection (4) above, as being basic preservation works which it is reasonably necessary to carry out to any land) notwithstanding that the works incidentally involve - (a) the making of some alteration, adjustment or improvement to the land…”

“…Thus if the word “renew”, in a context plainly going beyond repair, can properly extend, as I believe it can, as far as a total replacement of the subject-matter to which it relates, then I see no good reason why it should not…do so [in the case before the Judge]”

“A lease of a house in London contained a covenant by the lessee to substantially repair and keep in thorough repair and good condition the demised premises and at the end or sooner determination of the term to deliver up the same to the lessors so repaired and kept. Subsequently the reversion expectant on the lease was assigned to the plaintiff and the lease to the defendants. Shortly before the expiration of the term the London County Council served a notice on the owner and occupiers requiring them to take down the front external wall of the house to the level of the ground floor as being a dangerous structure, and the plaintiff called upon the defendants to comply with this notice, which they failed to do. After the expiration of the term, the plaintiff, in compliance with a demolition order of a police magistrate, took down the wall to the level of the ground floor, and then, in compliance with a further notice of the London County Council, took down, the remainder of the wall and rebuilt it in accordance with modern requirements. The house was very old and the condition of the wall was caused by old age, and the wall could not have been repaired without rebuilding it”

“…For my own part, when the word “repair” is applied to a complex matter like a house, I have no doubt that the repair includes the replacement of parts. Of course, if a house had tumbled down, or was down, the word “repair” could not be used to cover rebuilding. It would not be apt to describe such an operation. But, so long as the house exists as a structure, the question whether repair means replacement, or, to use the phrase so common in marine cases, substituting new for old, does not seem to me to be at all material. Many, and in fact most, repairs imply that some portion of the total fabric is renewed, that new is put in place of old. Therefore you have from time to time as things need repair to put new for old. If you properly repair as you go along the consequence will be that you will always get a house which will be in repair and usable as a house, but you will not get a house that does not suffer from age, nor a house which when old is the same as when it was new. I cannot think that there is any case which lays down that if a person has undertaken throughout a term to repair a house he can ever say that he has no longer any duties because, although he has properly repaired, the house no longer exists…”

““Repair” and “renew” are not words expressive of a clear contrast. Repair always involves renewal; renewal of a part; of a subordinate part. A skylight leaks; repair is effected by hacking out the putties, putting in new ones, and renewing the paint. A roof falls out of repair; the necessary work is to replace the decayed timbers by sound wood; to substitute sound tiles or slates for those which are cracked, broken, or missing; to make good the flashings, and the like. Part of a garden wall tumbles down; repair is effected by building it up again with new mortar, and, so far as necessary, new bricks or stone. Repair is restoration by renewal or replacement of subsidiary parts of a whole. Renewal, as distinguished from repair, is reconstruction of the entirety, meaning by the entirety not necessarily the whole but substantially the whole subject-matter under discussion…”

“The risk of substituting other words is neatly illustrated by the statement of the FTT at para.170 that something is incidental to another matter “if it is subordinate, or secondary, to it”

“…Suppose for an example a boat is used to ferry supplies somewhere and some of the crew take the opportunity to fish over the side of the boat. I would accept that the use of the boat for fishing might be said to be incidental to its use to ferry supplies, even though fishing could scarcely be said to further the ferrying of supplies. This would be more a case of what I have referred to as use A being a by-product of use B. But on the other hand I agree that it is difficult to regard use A as merely incidental to use B if it serves an independent purpose of its own, unconnected with use B, at any rate if that purpose is of some significance and not trivial or casual.”

“The temporary right of access should be specifically for “preservation work” - that is to say, work intended to protect and maintain existing land which of course includes things on, in or above the land, as indicated in Clause 1(4) of the Bill. Such work must be reasonably necessary and, in regard to buildings and other structures, may include inspection, repair, maintenance, improvement, decoration, alteration, adjustment, renewal or demolition. Improvements and alterations contemplated for their own sake are not to count as preservation work and are outside the scope of the Bill: but improvements and alterations which are incidental to preservation work are not so excluded so long as they could not be construed as development. … If one carries out a repair one is authorised to do a minor improvement. For instance, if one’s wooden window frame is falling to pieces, it would be quite in order to put in a better frame, perhaps double-glazing. It is only intentional improvement which is not allowed. Work which is incidental to preservation is all right so long as it cannot be construed as development. If alterations and improvements are contemplated for their own sake, that does not count as preservation work…”

“an access order may include provision”

“By 4pm on 19 July 2024 the Claimant must file and serve a schedule of loss setting out how the damages claim is quantified, which must include an explanation of how each matter complained of caused or contributed to the loss claimed which itself must be particularised.”