header-logo header-logo

The costs of poor behaviour

23 October 2024
Issue: 8091 / Categories: Legal News , Property , Leasehold
printer mail-detail

The Court of Appeal has clarified the rule on payment of costs where one party acts unreasonably

In Lea & Others v GP Ilfracombe Management Company [2024] EWCA Civ 1241, the leaseholders of properties at Ilfracombe Holiday Park had successfully challenged a claim for £2.4m service charge brought against them by the managing agents.

The first tier tribunal (FTT) can make an order for costs against a party if that party has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting the proceedings. Otherwise, proceedings are cost-neutral.

The leaseholders’ appeal concerned, first, the appropriate test to be applied where one party claims the other has acted unreasonably. Second, it concerned whether the FTT erred in law by concluding the management company did not act unreasonably.

Delivering the main judgment, Lord Justice Coulson noted the relevant case law states that unreasonable conduct ‘can include conduct which is vexatious or designed to harass, but it does not require such conduct’. He said deciding whether conduct was unreasonable was a fact-specific exercise.

Coulson LJ said: ‘A good practical rule is for the tribunal to ask: would a reasonable person acting reasonably have acted in this way? Is there a reasonable explanation for the conduct in issue?’

On the second question, Coulson LJ said the service charge demand was ‘an abuse of the process: a claim for a huge sum of money that was unsupported by anyone, unjustified by any independent documentation, and known by its creator… to be invalid. Unsurprisingly, the claim failed in its entirety. In such circumstances, the bringing of the claim by [the management company] in the first place, and its conduct throughout the FTT proceedings, would prima facie appear to have been unreasonable’.

Coulson LJ ordered the management company to pay all the leaseholders’ costs of the tribunal proceedings, including the hearing.

Issue: 8091 / Categories: Legal News , Property , Leasehold
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll