Part 2: Litigator's Pocket Guide to Useful Civil Cases

I previously wrote an article on 8 cases which all civil practitioners should be aware of, and break down their significance into bitesize chunks complete with analysis. This is a follow up article on recent decisions from the senior courts of England and Wales. In this article, I have selected 7 cases which are relatively recent and I hope provide value to dispute resolution lawyers. The cases which will be discussed are in no particular order and the usual disclaimers apply: this is for educational purposes only and legal advice should always be sought. For completeness, the judgments for each decision are hyperlinked within the case name.

Case 1: Harvey v Heaver [2026] EWHC 1671 (KB)

This is probably the most important housing conditions decision since the introduction of the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018. The claimants lived in a rented property affected by extensive damp and mould, water ingress, rodent infestation, defects in the heating system, septic tank problems, and a damaged asbestos-coated ceiling. They brought claims under sections 9A and 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, seeking remedial works, temporary accommodation and damages.

The key takeaways are:

1. A claimant does not need to establish a traditional section 11 disrepair claim in order to succeed under section 9A. A property may be unfit for human habitation even where there is no identifiable item of disrepair, provided the dwelling presents a health and safety risk or causes significant discomfort or inconvenience.

   
   

2. The judgment strongly encourages careful reliance on section 9A alongside section 11. The Court confirmed that historic authorities on fitness remain relevant, making older case law valuable in modern claims. It also accepted that widespread mould, damp, vermin infestation and environmental hazards can collectively render a property unfit.

   
   

3. Courts will scrutinise attempts to blame mould problems on tenant lifestyle. Ordinary domestic activities such as cooking, washing and drying clothes should not produce hazardous living conditions in a properly functioning building.

   
   

4. The judgment also demonstrates the importance of expert evidence. The claimants succeeded largely because they relied on an uncontested single joint expert whose evidence comprehensively identified defects and causation.

   
   

5. Finally, practitioners should note that the Court refused a landlord-funded decant despite finding the property unfit. Alternative accommodation will not be awarded automatically and must be justified on the facts.

Case 2: Muca v El Amrani; Harker and others v Hubert and another [2026] EWCA Civ 515

The Court of Appeal considered whether a landlord can rely on a section 21 "no-fault" eviction notice where a tenant was not given a gas safety certificate relating to the inspection undertaken before first occupation of the property. The appeals arose from two possession claims in which landlords had served section 21 notices despite historic failures relating to gas safety documentation.

In Muca, no gas safety check had been carried out before the tenant first occupied the property. In Harker, a pre-occupation certificate had allegedly existed but had been lost and was never given to the tenant. In both cases, later annual certificates were provided. The landlords argued that these later certificates cured any earlier defects or that the old requirements should not apply where occupation pre-dated the Deregulation Act 2015. This is now the leading authority on gas safety compliance and section 21 notices.

The Court of Appeal rejected those arguments and adopted a strict approach and confirmed that failure to provide a tenant with the gas safety record relating to the inspection undertaken before first occupation is fatal to a later section 21 notice. The defect cannot be cured by subsequently serving later certificates.

The key takeaways are:

1. It is critical for landlords to retain evidence of pre-occupation gas safety compliance indefinitely. Landlords who cannot prove that the original certificate was served may be unable to recover possession using section 21, even if all later checks were properly completed.

2. The Court held that successive tenancy agreements do not reset the requirement. Where a tenant remains in continuous occupation, landlords must look back to the original grant and ensure compliance at that stage.

   
   

3. For tenants, the judgment provides an important defence to possession claims. Scrutiny of historic gas safety records and proof of service may reveal grounds for challenging otherwise valid-looking notices.

   
   

4. More broadly, the decision illustrates the Courts' willingness to enforce procedural protections in housing legislation rigorously. Even technical failures may have substantive consequences where Parliament has made compliance a condition precedent to possession.

Case 3: Process & Industrial Developments Limited v The Federal Republic of Nigeria [2025] UKSC 36

This Supreme Court appeal concerned a narrow but financially significant question: in what currency should a costs order be made? The issue arose after Nigeria successfully challenged arbitration awards worth more than US$11 billion that had been obtained by Process & Industrial Developments Ltd. Nigeria incurred approximately £44.2 million in legal costs in the challenge proceedings.

P&ID argued that Nigeria’s costs should be awarded in naira, Nigeria’s national currency, rather than sterling. Because the naira had depreciated dramatically, particularly after 2023, an award in sterling would result in Nigeria receiving substantially more value than the equivalent naira it may originally have converted to fund the litigation.

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal and held that costs orders differ fundamentally from damages awards.

The key messages from this case can be summarised as follows:

1. Although the appeal concerned a seemingly technical issue about currency, the Supreme Court delivered important guidance on costs principles. The central lesson is that costs orders are not equivalent to damages awards. They are not designed to compensate for economic loss but to indemnify successful parties for liabilities incurred in litigation.

2. For litigators acting for international clients, the case confirms the Courts may award costs in foreign currencies where appropriate. The critical question is usually the currency in which the liability was actually incurred rather than the currency of the successful party's home jurisdiction.

3. The decision provides useful guidance for large-scale commercial litigation. Where solicitors bill and are paid in sterling, parties should generally expect costs recovery in sterling. Courts will not usually conduct a detailed inquiry into how a party obtained those funds or whether exchange rate movements produce gains or losses.

4. The judgment also highlights the significance of commercial reality over artificial accounting exercises.

5. Future disputes on foreign currency costs awards are likely to centre on the currency of the legal expense itself, rather than broader questions about financial loss or exchange-rate fluctuations.

Case 4: EJW Builders Ltd v Marshall [2026] EWCA Civ 911

This appeal concerned whether a builder and property owners had entered into an oral partnership or joint venture in relation to the redevelopment of the former Hilbury Court Hotel in Trowbridge. The appellants contended they were entitled to one-third of the development profits under an oral agreement reached before works began. The respondents maintained that the parties’ relationship was governed solely by a formal JCT building contract.

The High Court rejected the partnership claim and found that the only contractual relationship between the parties was the JCT contract. The builders appealed, arguing the following: unsupportive or contradictory findings of fact, the High Court failed to consider contemporaneous documentary evidence and the High Court made critical findings based on misunderstandings. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

This judgment is important to know for the following reasons:

1. The principal importance of this case lies in its treatment of factual appeals and evidential evaluation. The Court of Appeal reaffirmed the very limited circumstances in which appellate courts will interfere with factual findings made by trial judges. The Court of Appeal made explicit reference to its guidance in Volpi v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464 and that given in Simetra Global Assets Ltd v Ikon Finance Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1413.

   
   

2. Practitioners often cite Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm) for the proposition that documentary evidence should be preferred to witness recollection. This judgment provides an important corrective: the Court of Appeal emphasised that documents are frequently powerful evidence, but they are only one component of the overall factual matrix. Judges must also consider witness testimony, motivation, context and the inherent probabilities of competing accounts. Documents are not automatic trump cards.

3. The Court reiterated that factual findings will not be disturbed unless they were "plainly wrong" and absent compelling reason to the contrary, an appeal court is bound to assume that the trial judge has taken all evidence into consideration; the mere fact that a specific piece of evidence is not mentioned does not mean it was overlooked.

4. For commercial litigators, the case is a reminder that references to profit-sharing in emails, WhatsApp messages or informal discussions do not necessarily establish a legally binding partnership or joint venture. Careful analysis of intention, contractual certainty and the surrounding circumstances remain essential.

   
   

5. The judgment also reinforces the importance of contemporaneous documentation. Although the appeal failed, the Court recognised the significant role documents can play in assessing witness credibility and determining disputed facts.

   
   

6. Ultimately, the case serves as a practical warning: parties seeking to create profit-sharing arrangements should formalise them clearly in writing. Litigation over alleged oral agreements remains difficult, uncertain and highly dependent on judicial findings of fact

   
   

Case 5: Ijaz v Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd [2026] EWHC 1810 (Admin)

This Administrative Court appeal arose from disciplinary proceedings against a solicitor. The Solicitors Regulation Authority had issued a written rebuke after finding that she failed to comply with two court orders requiring payment of costs. An Adjudication Panel upheld the sanction, and the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal dismissed her subsequent appeal.

Ms Ijaz then appealed to the High Court. A central procedural difficulty was that her notice of appeal contained no grounds of appeal. Grounds were only provided several months later, shortly before the hearing. Whilst the Court held that there were therefore no valid appeal grounds properly before the it and it would be unfair to permit the late grounds to be advanced.  Notwithstanding this, the High Court nevertheless considered the proposed grounds and found that none had merit.

The key points from this case are as follows:

1. Procedural compliance matters as much as substantive merit. The appellant's failure to file grounds of appeal alongside the notice ultimately proved fatal. The Court held that no valid grounds were properly before it and refused to overlook the procedural deficiencies.

2. Critically, whilst grounds of appeal are essential for constituting a valid appeal, where the court office accepts an appellant's notice without grounds of appeal, the appeal was brought within time.

   
   

3. For regulatory practitioners, the lesson is obvious: grounds of appeal should be carefully prepared and filed in accordance with procedural requirements. Reliance on late amendments or informal attempts to raise new points carries significant risk.

   
   

4. The judgment is also notable because the Court expressly criticised repeated delays, last-minute applications and failures to comply with directions. Such conduct influenced the Court's perception of the appeal and attracted judicial criticism.

   
   

5. The case reinforces an increasingly familiar judicial theme: the Courts are less willing than in the past to excuse serious procedural defaults. Litigants who fail to comply with rules and deadlines should not expect relief merely because substantive arguments might arguably exist.

Case 6: The Wine Enterprise Investment Scheme Limited (In Liquidation) v Crowe U.K. LLP [2026] EWHC 1662 (Ch)

This judgment concerned consequential issues following the substantive professional negligence ruling in The Wine Enterprise Investment Scheme Ltd v Crowe UK LLP [2026] EWHC 692 (Ch). Although the claimant company succeeded in establishing some auditor negligence, it recovered only approximately £102,000 against claims which at one stage exceeded £8 million.

The principal issue was costs. The High Court had to determine who was the true “successful party” for CPR purposes. Despite obtaining a damages award, the claimant had recovered only around 1.6% of the amount sought. The Court held that, viewed realistically and commercially, Crowe had achieved overwhelming success in defeating the vast majority of the claim.

The Court therefore ordered the claimant to pay 85% of Crowe’s costs incurred before the expiry of a Part 36 offer and all of Crowe’s costs thereafter. Conventional Part 36 consequences were also applied. The judge rejected arguments that it would be unjust to impose those consequences and reaffirmed the importance of maintaining the certainty and effectiveness of the Part 36 regime.

The important elements of this decision can be explained as follows:

1. Whilst the claimant technically receive damages, it only recovered only around 1.6% of the damages claimed. As a result, despite obtaining judgment, it was ordered to pay the majority of the defendant's costs. The case demonstrates the danger of advancing large and ambitious claims that ultimately succeed only marginally.

2. It is a powerful endorsement of the Part 36 regime. Courts remain reluctant to disapply the usual consequences where a party fails to beat a settlement offer. Parties who reject realistic offers therefore face potentially severe costs exposure.

   
   

3. It is critical that legal teams carefully evaluate proportionality throughout proceedings and keep quantum allegations under review. Success on liability alone may not protect a claimant from an adverse costs order if the ultimate recovery is substantially below expectations.

   
   

4. Litigation strategy should focus not simply on winning issues but on achieving a commercially meaningful outcome. A technical victory may still result in a substantial costs defeat.

Case 7: MSA Properties Ltd v The Drapery Northampton Ltd [2026] EWHC 1420 (KB)

This case concerned the difficult balance between a landlord’s repairing obligations and a tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment. Following the collapse of a loading bay ceiling, rotten structural joists were discovered beneath two flats in a mixed-use building. The freeholder contended that extensive repairs and replacement of joists were necessary and that access from within the flats, requiring temporary vacation by occupiers, was essential.

The long leaseholder resisted the claim, arguing that repairs could be undertaken from below and that requiring residents to vacate would breach the covenant for quiet enjoyment.

The High Court granted the freeholder six weeks' exclusive possession of two residential flats to carry out structural joist replacement from above (reducing the ten-week period sought). The court rejected the tenant's argument that a landlord may never reasonably select a repair method requiring the tenant to vacate unless it is the sole possible method. The Court held that the landlord was entitled to choose a reasonable method of repair, even where that involved significant interference with the tenant’s occupation. However, the right of entry and execution of works had to be exercised proportionately and with minimal disturbance.

The practical highlights of this case are:

1. It provides useful guidance on the tension between repairing obligations and quiet enjoyment. The Court confirmed that neither principle automatically overrides the other. Instead, the exercise requires a fact-sensitive balancing of competing rights.

   
   

2. For landlords, the judgment confirms that they may be entitled to choose a repair methodology that causes significant disruption if it is objectively reasonable and supported by expert evidence. The tenant's consent is not necessarily required where substantial structural repairs must be undertaken.

   
   

3. For tenants, the decision demonstrates that objections based solely on inconvenience are unlikely to succeed if the landlord can establish that the proposed works are the safest and most effective option. Challenges should therefore focus on whether the chosen method is genuinely reasonable and proportionate.

   
   

4. The outcome depended heavily on competing expert opinions regarding the extent of deterioration and available repair methods. Early expert involvement is therefore critical in substantial property disputes.

   
   

5. Finally, evidence is critical when claiming damages. Although the tenant established failings by the landlord in relation to fire-safety remediation, the counterclaim failed because there was no documentary proof of loss. Liability without evidence of quantum will rarely result in recovery.

Please note that our posts should not be intended to be legal advice and should not be construed as such; they are merely discussions and therefore readers are encouraged to seek professional legal advice for their own matters.