header-logo header-logo

Clearer on costs

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

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll