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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll