High Court judge criticises “pretty relaxed and leisurely manner” to carrying out specific works in disrepair case

Rajah J said this had resulted in a “mad scramble” to get the matter before him and had left leaseholder Thomas Leveritt with unfinished works despite the court order requiring Hackney Council to complete them by 31 May.

District Judge Beecham had imposed the order on 14 March with the penal notice specifically citing that it was the chief executive who would be in contempt if the order was not complied with. it was accepted on behalf of the council that the notice's purpose was taken “ultimately to ensure compliance with the order”, Rajah J said.

Hackney had asked for an extension to the order but Rajah J refused and sent the matter back to Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court saying the council had placed insufficient evidence before him.

DJ Beecham’s order was made after Mr Leveritt applied for an injunction requiring specific works to be done.

These were not completed in time and Hackney sought the extension.

Rajah J said it had become apparent repointing works and replacement of low level render coatings would not be completed in time.

The judge said this was known on 16 May but nothing was done by Hackney until 23 May.

“It seems to me that there has been a very leisurely approach in circumstances where there was a fast approaching deadline,” Rajah J said.

“The result of that has been a mad scramble to get this application heard today.”

He said that as the vacation duty High Court judge he had jurisdiction to grant Hackney an extension but he would instead transfer the case back to the county court.

Rajah J said he had been taken through Hackney’s evidence and “we rapidly reached point 6 without any evidence that anything had actually been done since the order.

"If one carries through and one looks at these bullets they seem mainly to be things like exhibited emails and photographs and one cannot tell from [notice] QN1, what, if any, work has been done or when.”

He said DJ Beecham had allowed some three months for the works and “if the borough chooses to commence the works in earnest two weeks before the hearing it can expect little sympathy from the court if it is not able to complete the works within that two weeks”.

Rajah J said he was unwilling to pre-empt the county court’s decision on the evidence before him, which he said was “consistent with this having been approached in a pretty relaxed and leisurely manner.

“Mr Leveritt says that this application is the London Borough of Hackney weaponising their incompetence and if what he says about their inaction is correct, I agree,” Rajah J said.

“So I am not going to grant an extension today. I am going to hear from both parties as to what can be done to ensure that until the application for an extension is heard no steps are taken to bring contempt proceedings.”

Hackney has been contacted for comment.

Mark Smulian