header-logo header-logo

04 August 2016 / Caoimhe McKearney , Alexander Bastin
Issue: 7710 / Categories: Features , Property , Costs
printer mail-detail

Clearer on costs

Caoimhe McKearney & Alexander Bastin welcome a decision from the Upper Tribunal that has provided clarity on the “unreasonable” test for costs awards in the Property Tribunal

  • In Willow Court Management Company (1985) Limited v Alexander the Upper Tribunal made clear that costs orders under r 13(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 ought to be relatively rare.

Rule 13(1) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 (SI 2013/1169) provides that the Property Chamber of the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) may order costs (other than fees) in several limited circumstances. Of most interest to landlords, managing agents and others involved in FTT cases is r 13(1)(b), which provides for costs orders (in agricultural land and drainage, residential property or leasehold cases) “if a person has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending, or conducting proceedings”.

The introduction of r 13(1) on 1 July 2013 looked to mark a significant departure from the rules of the old Leasehold Valuation Tribunal,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll