Judge turns to Dickens for guidance

I smiled when I read in The Times recently that a Court of Appeal judge had turned to Charles Dickens for help in trying to resolve a dispute over a property lease.

Lord Justice Rimer said he found a solution in the Dickens’ book Bleak House to his problem over the “potentially flexible” meaning of the word “adjoining”.

The judge said that Dickens, who is pictured below and whose visits to Shrewsbury are mentioned in Four Centuries at The Lion Hotel, described an inquest in chapter 33 which showed that “adjoining” might not always mean “touching”.

In a written judgement published last Thursday the judge said: “Chapter 32 of Bleak House concludes with the description of Krook’s demise in his rag and bottle warehouse by the phenomenon of spontaneous combustion.

“Chapter 33 describes the inquest held at the Sol’s Arms, a well-conducted tavern immediately adjoining the premises in question on the west side and licensed to a respectable landlord, Mr James George Bogsby.”

He added: “Dickens’ words neatly illustrate the point that a user of the word ‘adjoining’ may not necessarily be using it as meaning ‘touching’.”

Lord Justice Rimer and two other judges were hearing evidence in a dispute between Caroline Lovat, of Radlett, Hertfordshire, and Hertmere Borough Council.

They had to decide whether Mrs Lovat, who owned a leasehold property in Radlett, could acquire the freehold from the council.

But the judges ruled in favour of the council, which had challenged a ruling by a judge sitting in central London County Court.

Who says Dickens is not relevant today and who would expect it to be used in a Court of Appeal case?