[2004] EWHC 134 (QB), 4 February 2004. Appeal by claimant tenants (B) against the dismissal in their county court claim for damages and specific performance in respect of dampness in their property and breach of an implied term of their tenancy agreement with their respondent landlord (P), under Landlord and Tenant 1985 s11 and/or Defective Premises Act 1972 s4. The judge, having to resolve whether B had proven that the dampness had been caused by an actionable defect in the structure or exterior of P's building, found on the basis of P's expert's report, in P's favour. B appealed, contending that the judge had given insufficient reasons for his decision and had taken irrelevant matters into account, in particular B's funding arrangements with their solicitors. "Held", appeal dismissed. B's expert's report had not buttoned down the chain of causation so as to persuade the judge that B's burden of proof had been discharged. Because of the incomplete picture derived from the expert reports presented, no further reasons could be given for the decision he made. Although the judge's discussion of B's solicitors' arrangements was irrelevant, this did not render his ultimate decision wrong or unjust. View judgment atwww.bailii.org.