• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

  • Home
  • What is LKP
  • Find everything …
  • Contact
Donate

Leasehold Knowledge Management Logo

Secretariat of the All Party Parliamentary Group on leasehold reform

Mobile Menu

  • Home
  • What is LKP
  • Find everything …
  • Contact
  • Advice
  • News
    • Find everything …
    • About Peverel group
    • APPG
    • ARMA
    • Bellway
    • Benjamin Mire
    • Brixton Hill Court
    • Canary Riverside
    • Charter Quay
    • Chelsea Bridge Wharf
    • Cladding scandal
    • Competition and Markets Authority / OFT
    • Commonhold
    • Communities Select Committee
    • Conveyancing Association
    • Countrywide
    • MHCLG
    • E&J Capital Partners
    • Exit fees
    • FirstPort
    • Fleecehold
    • Forfeiture
    • FPRA
    • Gleeson Homes
    • Ground rent scandal
    • Hanover
    • House managers flat
    • House of Lords
    • Housing associations
    • Informal lease extension
    • Insurance
    • IRPM
    • Jim Fitzpatrick MP
    • John Christodoulou
    • Justin Bates
    • Justin Madders MP
    • Law Commission
    • LEASE
    • Liam Spender
    • Local authority leasehold
    • London Assembly
    • Louie Burns
    • Martin Paine
    • McCarthy and Stone
    • Moskovitz / Gurvits
    • Mulberry Mews
    • National Leasehold Campaign
    • Oakland Court
    • Park Homes
    • Parliament
    • Persimmon
    • Peverel
    • Philip Rainey QC
    • Plantation Wharf
    • Press
    • Property tribunal
    • Prostitutes
    • Quadrangle House
    • Redrow
    • Retirement
    • Richard Davidoff
    • RICS
    • Right To Manage Federation
    • Roger Southam
    • Rooftop development
    • RTM
    • Sean Powell
    • SFO
    • Shared ownership
    • Sinclair Gardens Investments
    • Sir Ed Davey
    • Sir Peter Bottomley
    • St George’s Wharf
    • Subletting
    • Taylor Wimpey
    • Tchenguiz
    • Warwick Estates
    • West India Quay
    • William Waldorf Astor
    • Windrush Court
  • Parliament
  • Accreditation
  • [Custom]
Menu
  • Advice
  • News
      • Find everything …
      • About Peverel group
      • APPG
      • ARMA
      • Bellway
      • Benjamin Mire
      • Brixton Hill Court
      • Canary Riverside
      • Charter Quay
      • Chelsea Bridge Wharf
      • Cladding scandal
      • Competition and Markets Authority / OFT
      • Commonhold
      • Communities Select Committee
      • Conveyancing Association
      • Countrywide
      • MHCLG
      • E&J Capital Partners
      • Exit fees
      • FirstPort
      • Fleecehold
      • Forfeiture
      • FPRA
      • Gleeson Homes
      • Ground rent scandal
      • Hanover
      • House managers flat
      • House of Lords
      • Housing associations
      • Informal lease extension
      • Insurance
      • IRPM
      • Jim Fitzpatrick MP
      • John Christodoulou
      • Justin Bates
      • Justin Madders MP
      • Law Commission
      • LEASE
      • Liam Spender
      • Local authority leasehold
      • London Assembly
      • Louie Burns
      • Martin Paine
      • McCarthy and Stone
      • Moskovitz / Gurvits
      • Mulberry Mews
      • National Leasehold Campaign
      • Oakland Court
      • Park Homes
      • Parliament
      • Persimmon
      • Peverel
      • Philip Rainey QC
      • Plantation Wharf
      • Press
      • Property tribunal
      • Prostitutes
      • Quadrangle House
      • Redrow
      • Retirement
      • Richard Davidoff
      • RICS
      • Right To Manage Federation
      • Roger Southam
      • Rooftop development
      • RTM
      • Sean Powell
      • SFO
      • Shared ownership
      • Sinclair Gardens Investments
      • Sir Ed Davey
      • Sir Peter Bottomley
      • St George’s Wharf
      • Subletting
      • Taylor Wimpey
      • Tchenguiz
      • Warwick Estates
      • West India Quay
      • William Waldorf Astor
      • Windrush Court
  • Parliament
  • Accreditation
You are here: Home / Uncategorized / Shouldn’t this case have been dealt with by a more senior court than the ‘low-cost’ property tribunal?

Shouldn’t this case have been dealt with by a more senior court than the ‘low-cost’ property tribunal?

January 2, 2016 //  by Sebastian O'Kelly

This case highlights – yet again – why the property tribunal system sometimes fails so badly. The First Tier Tribunal is intended to be the low-cost legal system in what is meant to be the lowest form of court in the land.

The tribunal rules require that if a case is sufficiently complex it should be moved to the Upper Tribunal, where there are more specialist and highly qualified judges. This was clearly a complex case, with the landlord represented by a QC and the leaseholders represented by an experienced barrister, and with both sides supported by specialist solicitors.

In total, the case has incurred well over half a million pounds in costs. A figure far more appropriate to the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court, rather than a First Tier Tribunal.

In the subsequent written costs hearing, Judge Marynski used an unusual methodology for awarding costs that seems to have unfairly burdened all the leaseholders at Chelsea Harbour with almost all the costs.

From reading the costs decision, it also seems unlikely that either side submitted full details of their costs – or at least that they were not considered in any financial detail. This may well be yet another case where the tribunal determines legal costs without “taxing” the actual figures. That is, the court assessing the nature of the costs claimed.

Time and again, LKP notes the tribunal hands down very dangerous costs decisions that are set out as percentages rather than an actual amount. So, 50 per cent of some unknown number – or rather 92 per cent in this case – seems a ridiculous and unfair way to conclude any hearing.

Had the leaseholders appealed to the Upper Tribunal, and then gone on via the Court of Appeal or even the Supreme Court they would have faced financial ruin.

By contrast, the landlord sits in a win-win situation.

Many leases allow the landlord to pass on his costs to defend any claim, while he knows full well there is no corresponding right to the leaseholder.

There are almost no circumstances in which the tribunal can award its own costs, being a low-cost court which, of course, only impacts the leaseholders.

Only if a section 20C order is given against the landlord is there any chance of limiting the landlord’s costs.

To obtain such an order, the leaseholders must both win, using money from their own pockets, at least a good proportion of their case, and then remember to ask the courts for the landlord’s costs to be limited from being passed to the service charge.

Just to tip things even more in favour of the landlord, had he lost at tribunal he would almost certainly have been granted leave to appeal on the inevitable ground that the case raises wider legal issues.

The only route left for those leaseholders who were not part of the main case and do not agree with the legal costs now passed on to them is to take their own case to determine whether the apportionment by the landlord has been fair.

The problem they face is that the landlord will claim he is only applying the judge’s cost ruling, which the judge has also somehow decided should not be subject to a further challenge.

In the build-up to the case, the need to abandon the original hearing and the inability for the parties to comply with directions seems to be a euphemism for the tribunal – yet again – failing to control the case.

Time after time, the tribunal seems to be supine in reacting to the games played by the lawyers in causing delays.

Bretherton solicitors, who acted for the landlords in this case, have certainly known these tricks of old, having played them before in cases such as Charter Quay, in Kingston, where they managed no less than four sets of delays in a single case.

Terms like “a lack of particularisation” also seem to be a bit of an issue with the tribunal, where lawyers deluge the tribunal with ever more documentation.

The tribunal allows more evidence than can ever be read, considered or understood – 26 volumes in this case! Then, it somehow accepts the lawyers’ arguments that this is still not enough detail on particular points.

It is the leaseholders’ legal team that should have checked each and every argument to ensure that it was fully supported by the relevant files.

Related posts:

Default ThumbnailCourt of Appeal ruling on Mundy case’s ‘inconvenient truth’ expected on Wednesday Default ThumbnailLord Neuberger: what have you done, as Daejan is cited in property tribunals Brixton Hill Court wins right to manage after first effort cost £25,000 Default ThumbnailSmall claims court exit fee battle fails … but it has cost Fairhold thousands Court of Appeal turns down Mundy case – unanimously

Category: Uncategorized

Latest Tweets

Tweets by @LKPleasehold

Mentions

Anthony Essien (34) APPG (37) ARMA (87) Bellway (30) Benjamin Mire (32) Cladding scandal (71) Clive Betts MP (31) CMA (44) Commonhold (52) Competition and Markets Authority (39) Countryside Properties plc (33) FirstPort (40) Grenfell cladding (56) Ground rents (54) Harry Scoffin (150) James Brokenshire MP (31) Jim Fitzpatrick (35) Jim Fitzpatrick MP (30) Justin Bates (40) Justin Madders MP (64) Katie Kendrick (37) Law Commission (60) LEASE (66) Leasehold Advisory Service (62) Leasehold houses (32) Long Harbour (48) Martin Boyd (80) McCarthy and Stone (39) National Leasehold Campaign (38) Persimmon (49) Peverel (61) Property tribunal (49) Redrow (30) Retirement (37) Robert Jenrick (33) Roger Southam (47) Sajid Javid (38) Sebastian O’Kelly (55) Sir Peter Bottomley (200) Taylor Wimpey (106) Tchenguiz (33) The Guardian (33) The Times (31) Vincent Tchenguiz (42) Waking watch contracts (40)
Previous Post: « It’s unfair, say Chelsea Harbour leaseholders lumbered with £300,000 legal costs after neighbours fail at tribunal
Next Post: How JB Leitch just cannot resist the F-word … for forfeiture »

Above Footer

Advising leaseholders. Avoiding disasters.
Stopping forfeiture. Exposing abuses. Urging reform.

We depend on individuals for the majority of our funding.

Support Us and Donate

LKP Managing Agents

Become an LKP Managing Agent

Common Ground
Adam Church
Blocnet property management2

Stay in Touch

To achieve victory in the leasehold game where you are playing against professionals and with rules that they know all too well - stay informed with the LKP newsletter.
Sign Up for Newsletter

Professional Directory

The following advertisements are from firms that seek business from leaseholders.
Click on the logos for company profiles.

Footer

About LKP

  • What is LKP
  • Privacy and data

Categories

  • News
  • Cladding scandal
  • Commonhold
  • Law Commission
  • Fleecehold
  • Parliament
  • Press
  • APPG

Contact

Leasehold Knowledge Partnership
Open Data Institute
5th Floor
Kings Place
London N1 9AG

sok@leaseholdknowledge.com

Copyright © 2023 Leasehold Knowledge Partnership | All rights reserved
Leasehold Knowledge Partnership Limited (company number: 08999652) is a company limited by guarantee that is a registered charity (number: 1162584) with the Charities Commission.
LKP website is hosted at www.34sp.com
Website by Callia Web