CASE STUDY: RETAIL OPERATOR SHEFFIELD

Introduction and Client Background

It must be appreciated that given most Expert reports are subject to legal proceedings.  We have therefore had to redact detail from the following Case Study in order to maintain legal privilege.

Our Expert was jointly appointed, which means both parties to the case agreed on the appointment of a Single Expert (Jointly Appointed). The case was between a commercial landlord and a tenant as a retail operator in Sheffield.

The legal case had a lengthy historical context, going back over 10 years, following original flooding evident, alleged defective repairs and ongoing lack of maintenance reported by both the Tenant and Landlord under their respective lease obligations. The Tenant was in dispute with their landlord following the work they had undertaken to rectify historical matters, and the Landlord was in dispute with the Tenant for allegedly not maintaining the property.  In addition to these matters, there was also a loss in value claim referred to as a loss in ‘diminution of value’. This required an additional Valuation Expert to be appointed to assess and report upon this specialist aspect.  As a result of the ingress the entire basement area was unusable by the Tenant.  They had lost valuable space for welfare and food preparation and were effectively paying rent on space they could not occupy, which added further complexity to the case.

The challenge was to distinguish the causes of the defects, identify the past repairs and separate those from other flooding issues.  The matter was further complicated by a complex lease agreement that had not been particularly well drafted.  The Expert Witness report was to be used to provide legal support in the property dispute.

Objectives of the Expert Witness Service

The goals were clear.  As a Jointly Appointed Expert, we were required to investigate and establish an opinion on the established points put forward by both parties to the case. This included a review of the legal obligations under the tenancy and establishing the extent of damage and the cause of said damage. We first needed to review the Lease and establish the responsibilities of the parties involved in the dispute, including the repairing responsibilities that each party held under the Lease.  This required us to pull on our knowledge of property law in order to provide impartial analysis.

Survey Methodology and Evidence Collection

The instruction required a site inspection, which was somewhat problematic as the basement was literally under water. This did not deter us; however, the H&S implications were clear: stagnant flood water, electrical issues, etc. We had to get a detailed record to help our investigations and establish the full extent of the work previously carried out and the extent of the damage. Without such, our evidence-based report would have lacked the detail required to establish a thorough professional opinion.

Findings and Impact on the Dispute

The report was presented clearly and concisely. We found many contributing factors to the water ingress, including disrepair to the adjoining properties, which further exacerbated the issues noted. Coincidentally, the adjoining properties were owned by the same landlord. We clarified matters covering both parties’ disputed arguments. 

Outcome and Client Feedback

The report was presented, and we now await whether we are required to input further or if a court appearance is required.. Often, our reports help support the legal teams in settling disputes ahead of proceeding to court due to our expert’s insight, which provides clarity to situations.