Abdol Hossein Azizi v Dama Construction Limited: Appeal dismissed on construction access denial

The High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales dismissed an appeal on 29 August 2025 in Abdol Hossein Azizi v Dama Construction Limited, reinforcing contractual obligations regarding property access during construction works. The case arose from basement excavation works at Fairhazel Gardens, London, where alleged structural damage occurred following access restrictions imposed by the property owner.

Case origins and contractual dispute

Dama Construction Limited was contracted to undertake excavation works for basements at properties 17, 17A, and 17B Fairhazel Gardens. During construction of the 17A basement, structural movement was reported to the existing flank wall of number 17. The appellant, Abdol Hossein Azizi, challenged HH Judge Saggerson's August 2024 findings regarding contractual obligations and damage responsibility.

The original judgement established that access denial by the appellant significantly contributed to the structural complications. Judge Saggerson concluded that the contractual arrangement inherently required Dama Construction Limited to access property number 17, placing responsibility on Azizi for any hindrance that could compromise construction integrity.

Grounds of appeal

The appellant pursued two primary grounds of appeal. Ground 1 contested the judge's conclusion that structural movement resulted primarily from the appellant's denial of access to essential works areas. Azizi argued that this finding contradicted expert report conclusions and represented a misinterpretation of the evidence presented during trial proceedings.

Ground 2 alleged procedural irregularities, claiming that cost submissions solicited by the judge were not properly considered before final judgement was rendered. The appellant contended that this procedural oversight undermined the validity of the decision-making process.

Appeal court analysis

Mr Justice Eyre presided over the appeal and conducted a comprehensive examination of both grounds. The appeal court found neither ground possessed substantive merit, resulting in dismissal of the appeal.

Addressing Ground 1, Justice Eyre determined that Judge Saggerson was entirely justified in concluding that access denial had serious repercussions for construction integrity. The expert report, whilst informative, did not preclude the judge from making findings based on evidence evaluation and credibility assessments conducted during trial. The judge's reasoning aligned with the overall evidence trajectory, demonstrating correlation between the appellant's actions and resulting structural issues.

The court scrutinised correspondence and evidence from both parties to analyse construction access nuances and contractual obligations. Judge Saggerson's determination that the contract's common intention included necessary access to number 17 was upheld, placing liability on Azizi for any hindrance leading to complications.

Regarding Ground 2, Justice Eyre concluded that whilst the appellant's submissions were filed late, they were considered in cost deliberations. The judge's decision to proceed with a costs hearing rather than making immediate decisions based solely on written submissions was deemed both justified and appropriate.

Implications for construction law

The appeal court's affirmation of the lower court decision reinforces judicial discretion in construction law disputes and emphasises the critical importance of maintaining contractual access obligations. The case demonstrates how access denial can establish liability for resultant structural damage, particularly where contractual arrangements implicitly require property access for safe completion of works.

Justice Eyre's detailed reasoning underscores the courts' approach to balancing expert evidence with trial judges' credibility assessments and factual findings. The judgement confirms that procedural flexibility in costs proceedings does not constitute irregularity where submissions are ultimately considered in deliberations.

The decision serves as precedent for construction disputes involving access rights and reinforces the principle that contractual parties cannot unilaterally restrict access where such restriction compromises project safety and completion.