Judges in St David’s Square case deliver a £31,000 unhappy New Year to ARC Time Freehold Fund, FirstPort and debt collectors JB Leitch

ARC Time Freehold Fund stung with £31,000 costs bill following failed appeal at St David’s Square, led by Liam Spender

ARC Time also banned from recovering at least £58,000 costs in relation to Court of Appeal and earlier Upper Tribunal case from the service charge

Freeholders and their solicitors – JB Leitch – dragged out proceedings since 2021 hoping the leaseholders would give up

… It gets worse (or, rather, better): freeholder permission to appeal to Supreme Court also refused

The Court of Appeal today ordered freeholder ARC Time Freehold Income Fund to pay £31,000 costs to a group of 70 leaseholders, led by Liam Spender, at St David’s Square, London.   

The freeholders said that the appeal was a “score draw” and they should not have to pay any of the successful leaseholders’ costs. Instead they attempted to make the successful leaseholders’ liable for their £58,000 in costs via the service charge.

The Court of Appeal declined the freeholders’ request.   

The Court of Appeal also said that the freeholders could not dump their costs of an earlier Upper Tribunal appeal via the service charge. It is believed those costs amount to between £30,000 and £40,000.

The latest order follows the Court of Appeal’s 5 December judgment in the leaseholders’ favour, which we reported on here:

Court of Appeal victory over St David’s Square £500k ‘contract for eternity’ door entry system

The case concerns a “contract for eternity” for door entry, intercom and other systems at the site. The systems are all rented from Chelmsford based Countryside Communications (of no relation to the developer of the same name).
   
The contracts were entered into when the site was built by original developer St George North London, a subsidiary of Berkeley Group plc. In 2003 Berkeley sold the freehold to the site to ARC Time’s forerunner.

The site consists of 436 flats and 40 houses at the tip of the Isle of Dogs in London. The site is managed by FirstPort, which is roundly criticised in all of the judgments to date for its failure to stop the contracts when their terms ended in July 2020. FirstPort claimed it was not responsible for this because it had lost all the paperwork and had none of the agreements to hand.

Written arguments over the last few weeks have seen ARC Time claim the leaseholders’ costs were unreasonable, even down to complaints about around £70 in postage and £180 for the lever arch files used to hold the court papers.

The freeholders in question, FIT Nominee Limited and FIT Nominee 2 Limited, are owned by NatWest. It is believed bank officials have been fully apprised of the progress of the litigation throughout. According to ARC Time’s accounts NatWest receives a fee of around £200,000 a year for holding assets on trust for ARC Time’s investors.

ARC Time is one of the freeholders involved in the unsuccessful judicial review against the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. In its most recent investor report ARC Time said it is seeking permission to appeal that defeat. The fund said it expects its permission to appeal application to be decided in early 2026.

The costs decision marks a trio of own goals for ARC Time, FirstPort and its solicitors, JB Leitch. 

ARC Time refused the leaseholders’ request that costs be capped at £25,000. In October 2025 the Court of Appeal refused a costs cap at the freeholders’ urging.
   
Lawyers acting for the freeholders were quick to trumpet their October success on LinkedIn.

Ultimately the October freeholder victory has turned to December defeat, with the freeholders being ordered to pay more than the costs cap they refused, as well as having to bear their own costs.

The second own goal is that the freeholders refused to agree costs after the 5 December judgment, leading to three rounds of written submissions. This increased the leaseholders’ costs by around £20,000. ARC Time has also been ordered to pay £11,000 of those extra costs.

The third own goal is that the freeholders and their solicitors – JB Leitch – have dragged out the proceedings since 2021 in the hope that leaseholders would give up. There is no sign of that happening.

Leaseholders at the site are preparing to return to the FTT later in 2026.

As we have reported previously, JB Leitch and the ARC Time Freehold Fund have an unusual relationship in that one of the Fund’s other freehold owning companies, Freehold Managers (Nominees) Limited, also owned by NatWest, has previously sued JB Leitch for nearly £2 million said to stem from its professional negligence in relation to advice to the fund over the purchases of the headlease over the Celestia site in Cardiff Bay.

In October 2025 Birmingham magistrates fined Freehold Managers (Nominees) £50,000 after it pled guilty to failing to comply with a Birmingham City Council fire safety directive at Centenary Plaza.

The Court of Appeal also threw out the freeholders’ application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
   
The freeholders said in the papers filed with the Court of Appeal that they wished the Supreme Court to consider how the statutory protection against unreasonable service charges applies without being constrained by previous Court of Appeal cases.

The freeholders have the option of asking the Supreme Court directly for permission to appeal, but are likely to be ordered to pay more costs to the leaseholders if they fail to get permission.

If ARC Time wins any appeal then it will significantly reduce the protection available to leaseholders from unreasonable service charges.

The freeholders appear to wish to argue that as soon as the landlord has any contract in place then that means no leaseholder can challenge the costs. This will make it very difficult, if not impossible, for any costs to be challenged.

The freeholders have until 15 January 2026 to file a further application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The proceedings will be returned to the FTT later in 2026 to decide how much the leaseholders should be refunded.

The case continues.