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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll