1. There is no viable claim in negligence or other against the landlords.
2. Accordingly the landlord's liability can only turn on a liability under the lease. But there is no term of the lease which can give liability. Thus for instance, there is no landlord's duty to repair, nor a duty to take all steps reasonably necessary to keep the premises fit for occupation or duty to ensure that the premises are free from water ingress, leaks from soil stacks, flooding, and so on.
3. It follows that there is no liability according to principles in Duke of Westminster v Guild (1985)
4. The allegations of unfairness of the trial have no basis at all. On the contrary the Judge appears to have allowed the tenants full latitude to advance their case or challenge that of the landlords. True it is the landlords were represented whereas the tenants were not, but that is not of itself a breach of Art. 6 of the ECHR. Nor is a breach of Art. 6 not to impose a fee cap or to case manage the case before trial, which is all the Judge did. As for the trial window being to short, my own view is that the Judge was if anything too liberal in allowing time for this case.
5. Nor is it relevant that the Landlord ignored requests to have the premises repaired. The injunction not to interfere with enjoyment of the premises does not amount to an obligation to repair and there was no repairing obligation
SO MUCH FOR A PUBLIC LANDLORD