header-logo header-logo

14 October 2016 / Joseph Ollech , Philip Sissons
Issue: 7718 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

Money back guarantee? (Pt 1)

nlj_7718_sissons

In a special two-part series, Philip Sissons & Joseph Ollech study costs recovery in long residential lease disputes

  • The scope of the FTT’s jurisdiction to award costs under the 2013 rules which govern its procedure.
  • An important recent decision of the Upper Tribunal clarifying the scope of that jursidiction.
  • Alternative, contractual, routes to cost recovery where recent case-law has clarified the extent to which a landlord might be able to recoup legal costs either directly from the tenant involved in the dispute or via the service charge.

Long residential leases are a fertile source of litigation. Aside from enfranchisement, disputes frequently arise regarding service charges and other breaches of lease covenants and a very large proportion of these disputes are litigated wholly in the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT).

These cases often involve relatively small sums of money or relatively trivial breaches of covenant. However (not least because of the complexity of the statutory regulation of service charges) the legal costs incurred in the proceedings are frequently significant and often disproportionate

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll