header-logo header-logo

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

The costs of poor behaviour

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

Sidley—James Inness

Sidley—James Inness

Partner joins capital markets team in London office

Haynes Boone—William Cecil

Haynes Boone—William Cecil

Firm announces appointment of partner as UK general counsel

Devonshires—Nicholas Barrows

Devonshires—Nicholas Barrows

Firm appoints first chief marketing officer to drive growth strategy

NEWS

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
back-to-top-scroll