No General Duty to Disclose Evaluative Advice of Court-Appointed Assessors: Laidley v Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd

Introduction

Laidley v Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd ([2025] EWCA Civ 448) is a landmark Court of Appeal decision clarifying the procedural safeguards and disclosure obligations governing assessors appointed under the County Courts Act 1984 and the Equality Act 2010. Mr Laidley, a disabled tenant diagnosed with a delusional disorder, faced possession proceedings by his social landlord, MHT, for persistent anti-social noise (grounds 12 and 14, Housing Act 1988). He defended on nuisance grounds and counterclaimed for disability discrimination. The trial judge appointed an Equality Act assessor to assist with issues of proportionality and discrimination; Mr Laidley sought disclosure of her private advice, relying on nautical-assessor authorities. Both the trial judge and Bacon J (High Court) refused, leading to this appeal.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed Mr Laidley’s second appeal. It confirmed that:

Role of the Assessor: In discrimination or proportionality cases an assessor may be asked only to evaluate evidence and advise the judge—not to provide independent expert evidence.
No General Disclosure Obligation: Where an assessor’s role is purely evaluative, their advice need not be disclosed to the parties, absent any indication they added new evidence or raised unforeseen issues.
Procedural Fairness Preserved: Fundamental fairness is secured by allowing judges to decide what assessor assistance is needed, with disclosure required only if the assessor goes beyond evaluation or introduces new lines of argument.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Bow Spring v Manzanillo II [2005] 1 WLR 144: Established that nautical assessors act as exclusive expert witnesses and their questions and answers must be disclosed to the parties for fairness.
Global Mariner v Atlantic Crusader [2005] EWHC 380 (Admlty): Applied Bow Spring to maritime collision cases with nautical assessors, prescribing open-court questioning of assessors.
Ahmed v University of Oxford [2003] 1 WLR 995: Distinguished between assessors who give expert evidence (requiring disclosure of reports) and those who merely assist fact-finding or evaluation.
Richardson v Redpath Brown & Co Ltd [1944] AC 62: Medical assessor who privately advised the judge; judgment set aside for breach of fairness by non-disclosure of his views.
Watson v General Medical Council [2005] EWHC 1896: Medical advisers to a disciplinary committee gave private advice; decision quashed due to lack of transparency.
Halliburton Energy Services v Smith International [2006] EWCA Civ 1599: Scientific advisers to appellate courts may assist understanding but must disclose if they give opinions on disputed facts.

Legal Reasoning

The Court applied the fundamental principle of procedural fairness: parties must know and be able to meet all material evidence. It held that:

No Universal Rule: Assessors’ roles vary. When they provide independent expert evidence, disclosure follows as a matter of course. When they only aid the judge’s evaluation of evidence, no general disclosure duty arises.
Statutory Framework: Section 63 CCA 1984 and CPR 35.15 empower courts to appoint assessors “of skill and experience” and to direct them to prepare reports or attend trial. Section 114(7) EA 2010 mandates use of assessors in discrimination cases unless good reason exists not to.
Distinguishing Features: Nautical assessors under CPR 61.13 are exclusive expert witnesses—parties cannot call their own experts without leave. Equality Act assessors are expressly to advise on proportionality and PSED compliance, not to replace party-led evidence.
Burden of Disclosure: If an assessor stays within an evaluative role—using personal expertise to help the judge weigh evidence—fairness does not require disclosure of private discussions. Disclosure becomes necessary only if:
- the assessor provides additional evidence beyond party-led testimony, or
- they introduce an unforeseen line of reasoning that materially affects the case.

Impact

Laidley establishes clear guidance on assessor usage in civil proceedings, especially in discrimination and public-sector equality duty contexts:

Judicial Discretion Affirmed: Trial judges have wide discretion in defining assessors’ functions, subject only to the overlay of fairness.
Limitation of Disclosure Demands: Practitioners will no longer be able to demand wholesale disclosure of private assessor advice where the assessor’s role is evaluative.
Risk Management: Judges should remain alert to any overreach by assessors—if they stray into evidence-giving or novel argument, parties must be notified and given opportunity to respond.
Guidance for Equality Act Cases: MHT and other public bodies can be confident that compliance assessments and proportionality advice by court-appointed assessors need not be broadcast, reducing procedural burden while preserving fairness.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Assessor: A specialist (lay or expert) appointed by a judge to help decide technical or complex issues. Under CPR 35.15 and CCA 1984 s.63, they may prepare reports or advise the judge during trial.
Evaluative Role vs. Evidential Role: Evaluative: The assessor uses their expertise to help the judge understand and weigh the evidence presented by parties. No new evidence is created.
Evidential: The assessor provides independent expert evidence or facts not otherwise before the court. Such material must be disclosed to ensure fairness.
Proportionality: A legal test requiring that measures taken (e.g., eviction) be appropriate and no more restrictive than necessary to achieve a legitimate aim, particularly under the Equality Act and human rights law.
Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED): Section 149 EA 2010 obliges public bodies (including social landlords) to consider the need to eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity when making decisions or exercising functions.

Conclusion

Laidley v Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd decisively clarifies that where court-appointed assessors merely assist the judge in evaluating evidence—particularly on proportionality and discrimination issues—their private advice need not be disclosed to parties as a matter of routine. Disclosure is only triggered if they cross into giving new evidence or raising unexpected arguments. This balancing of fairness and judicial efficiency will guide future assessor appointments and protect the integrity of civil proceedings without imposing unnecessary procedural burdens.