'Other reasons' never identified. Classic Flannery breach.
Cohen stated there were 'other reasons besides exclusive possession' for granting summary judgment but never identified them. A judge who fails to give adequate reasons commits a Flannery breach.
Flannery v Halifax Estate Agencies [2000] 1 WLR 377; English v Emery Reimbold [2002] EWCA Civ 605
What the opponent will argue, and why they are wrong.
Ex tempore judgments need not be as detailed as reserved judgments.
Flannery duty applies to ALL judgments including ex tempore. Court stated 'other reasons besides exclusive possession' but NEVER identified them. English v Emery Reimbold [2002] EWCA Civ 605: inadequate reasons = ground for appeal. The duty is to give reasons sufficient for the losing party to understand why they lost.
The reasons were implicit in the judgment and did not need to be spelled out.
Flannery is clear: the reasons must be EXPRESS, not implicit. The losing party must be able to understand from the judgment WHY they lost. 'Other reasons besides exclusive possession' identifies no reason at all. It is a placeholder for absent reasoning. English v Emery Reimbold: the loser must understand from the judgment itself.
The sealed order itself records the unidentified reasons. Self-proving Flannery breach.
Fallback: Multiple independent routes to set aside Cohen SJ. Flannery is one of at least 5 attack vectors.
Independence: Partially dependent on other grounds succeeding.
| Date | Judge | Type | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19 August 2025 | Recorder Cohen KC | Summary Judgment Order | VOID |