Stojalowski v Bristol City Council [2024] EWCC 30 – Specific Performance Case Law

Stojalowski v Bristol City Council is a significant recent decision offering practical guidance for housing disrepair practitioners, particularly where a tenant is seeking specific performance alongside damages. Although a county court judgment, it was reserved to a circuit judge precisely to provide wider guidance, making it an important reference point for future case law.

Background to the case

In this peice of specific performance case law, Mrs Mary-Ann Stojalowski was a secure tenant of a Bristol City Council property suffering from severe disrepair. The issues included a persistent water leak into the main bedroom, causing rot, damp and mould in several rooms, suspected asbestos, non-watertight balcony doors, and various window and cladding defects. These problems had been ongoing for some time.

Her letter of claim identified open-market repair costs of more than £2,700 in total. A partial response from the council resulted in some works and an £833.90 payment, but the leak and wider disrepair continued. Proceedings were issued in January 2024 seeking both specific performance (to compel the council to complete the repairs) and damages up to £5,000.

The council argued that the matter belonged in the small-claims track. The claimant argued for fast track. The court was required to determine the correct allocation under CPR 26.9 and 26.13.

Issues before the court

The case raised several substantive questions:

• Should a housing disrepair claim involving a remedy of specific performance normally be allocated to the fast track?
• How should the cost of repairs be assessed for the purposes of CPR 26.9(1)(b)?
• What weight, if any, should be given to internal complaints schemes, budget constraints and broader public-interest arguments?
• To what extent does the valuation of damages, expert evidence and anticipated trial length influence allocation?

Decision

HHJ Blohm KC held that the appropriate and normal track for this claim was the fast track (band 3), and the matter was allocated accordingly.

Key guidance from the judgment

1. Allocation involves a structured two-stage analysis

The judge confirmed that allocation requires identifying the normal track under CPR 26.9 and then evaluating whether CPR 26.13 provides justification to depart from that starting point. Once the normal track is identified, it creates a presumption in favour of that track unless compelling reasons exist to displace it.

2. The claim for specific performance activates CPR 26.9(1)(b)

The tenant was clearly seeking specific performance. For allocation, the question is simply whether that remedy is sought, not whether it will ultimately be granted. Attempts by the council to argue that a social landlord who is attempting repairs is effectively insulated from a mandatory order were rejected. The court recognised that specific performance is an equitable remedy available where monetary damages cannot adequately address harm caused by the breach, particularly where a party to perform ongoing repair obligations has failed to resolve the subject matter of the dispute.

3. Cost of repairs must be assessed using open-market pricing

The council relied on its cheaper in-house labour costs, citing Jalili v Bury Council. HHJ Blohm expressly declined to follow that approach, finding that open-market repair costs provide a fair, objective basis when considering whether the threshold under CPR 26.9(1)(b) is met. The outstanding work in this case was substantial, meaning the open-market cost easily exceeded £1,000.

4. Damages must be valued at the reasonable upper end

For allocation, “value” refers to the realistic upper range of potential recovery. Using standard disrepair valuation methods, the court found that the damages claim remained comfortably above £1,000 even after accounting for the earlier £833.90 payment, which was treated as an admission on quantum for allocation purposes.

5. Expert evidence and trial duration supported fast-track allocation

Both parties relied on surveyors, and disputes existed concerning causation, scope of works and cost. A hearing lasting more than three hours was likely. This level of complexity falls outside the small-claims regime and fits the fast track model.

6. Internal complaints schemes and budget pressures carry little weight

The council sought to rely on its internal complaints procedure, general budget limitations and the supposed public-interest in reducing disrepair litigation. HHJ Blohm held that such factors do not materially affect allocation decisions. A court may order a stay where ADR is appropriate, but once litigation is properly underway, allocation must be determined by the CPR and not policy considerations.

Significance of this peice of Specific Performance Case Law

Although not binding, this decision provides clear and practical guidance for future housing disrepair cases, particularly where a claimant is seeking specific performance or orders for specific performance in circumstances where the landlord has not resolved the underlying breach of contract. The judgment reinforces that tenancy agreements impose enforceable repair obligations that must be performed even where monetary damages alone would be insufficient. It also reaffirms that an aggrieved party may pursue the equitable remedy of specific performance where appropriate, especially in cases where the failure to act continues to cause harm.

The judgment also confirms that landlords cannot manipulate allocation by pointing to internal repair efficiencies. The correct approach is objective, market-based and forward-looking.

Conclusion and how Greener Costs can assist

Stojalowski v Bristol City Council stands as a clear reminder that where substantial disrepair and an active claim for specific performance remain at allocation, fast track will usually be the appropriate route. The decision on this example of speciifc performance case law clarifies how courts assess the cost of repairs, damages valuation and the role of expert evidence, while reinforcing the availability of court orders compelling a party to perform contractual obligations where housing conditions continue to deteriorate because of a breach of contract.

This allocation outcome carries major costs implications. Fast track cases demand structured budgeting, careful expert coordination and an understanding of how allocation decisions affect future recovery of monetary damages and litigation expenditure.

Greener Costs supports firms at every stage of this process. We help ensure that the costs surrounding disrepair claims are prepared with strong evidential foundations, that allocation arguments are strategically framed, and that the financial position is protected throughout.

Speak to one of our draftsmen specialising in disrepair today on 01204 263047 or info@greenercosts.co.uk. Whether you are seeking specific performance, responding to allocation disputes or managing the cost consequences of a breach of contract, our team can assist in ensuring the case is positioned effectively and proportionately from the outset.