Case No. UKUT-0074-(LC)

66. Submissions on costs have been received only from the Council. Firstly, in connection with the proceedings in the County Court, it was acknowledged that, as I indicated in paragraph 63 above, this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the question of costs which have been incurred by the Council in defending that claim. My views on the question of the claimant’s filing fee was dealt with in the same paragraph. The Council requested that I should refer the costs issues back to the County Court and, further, suggested that I either provide a determination about who is to pay the costs or alternatively produce a summary of the relevant parts of the decision (in particular paragraphs 58 – 63) sufficient to enable the County Court to make such an Order and proceed to a summary assessment. 67. It is for the County Court to deal with this issue, and I cannot make the determination requested. The Council should pursue the matter by making its own application to the County Court, and should, by copy of this decision refer to the paragraphs it wishes the court to consider. I would say that the CPR do not provide generally for cases to be transferred by the County Court to the Tribunal, but deal specifically with transfers only to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CPR 30.8). It may be that Judge Marin had in mind the provisions for transfer contained in section 176A of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act but those provisions only apply to specific landlord and tenant jurisdictions, and not to compensation claims. The transfer order should not therefore have been made.68. Turning to the costs of the proceedings in this Tribunal, the Council submitted that it should receive its costs on the grounds that it was the successful party. The Tribunal’s determination was precisely the same as the figure set out by Mr Denish Patel in the Council’s revised statement of case that was submitted at the time of the hearing on 10 January 2018. That was based upon the revised valuation included in Mrs Covill’s expert witness report of 27 September 2017, and the disbursement offers that had previously been made.69. The Council had also made a sealed offer on 22 December 2017 in the overall sum of £355,000 which would, if it had been accepted, have had the effect of increasing the balance to be paid to the claimants (taking into account the advance payment already made) from £59,587.50 to £108,962.50 ‘in full and final settlement’. However, this offer was rejected by the claimants on 31 December 2017 by their counter-offer which formed the basis of their position during the hearing. 70. It was also submitted that, under Rule 10(3) of the Tribunal’s Rules, an order for costs may be made in the Council’s favour if the Tribunal agrees that the claimants have acted unreasonably. It was the Council’s case that claimants’ refusal to accept a reasonable offer to settle which was significantly above the amount finally determined constituted unreasonable conduct. It was also said to have been unreasonable for them to have failed to support their case with evidence.71. On that latter point, the fact is that the claimants did (through Mr Yazdiha’s submissions) provide their own evidence but they did not rely upon the report of an expert witness. It cannot be said to be unreasonable conduct for parties to rely only upon their own views and opinions in proceedings before a specialist tribunal, where it can reasonably be expected that all expressions of opinion, lay or expert, will be subjected to informed scrutiny. However unwise it may be, it is especially difficult to regard the claimants as having acted unreasonably where their representative has some knowledge and practical experience of the issues. As to the sealed offer, it is also not unreasonable to bring a claim which falls short. The argument as to unreasonableness is therefore misconceived. 72. The general principle is that the successful party should pay the costs incurred by the unsuccessful party, unless there is reason for the Tribunal to make a different order. The claimants are the successful party in this case up to the point they refused the Council’s offer, which they subsequently failed to beat. I therefore determine that the Council shall pay the claimants’ costs up to 31 December 2017, the date upon which, by their submission of a counter offer (which was not specific in terms), the claimants effectively declined the Council’s offer of 22 December 2017. The Council has been the successful party after 31 December 2017, and the claimants should pay its costs from that date. 73. The claimants have not yet submitted any information concerning the costs they have incurred. No criticism is intended of that omission, but it is in contrast to the position taken by the Council, which has provided a Costs Schedule giving details of its own costs, which enable a summary assessment to be undertaken thus saving the delay and further expense of a detailed assessment. If the claimants also wish the Tribunal to carry out a summary assessment of their costs they are invited to submit, within 14 days of the date of this addendum, details of any costs they incurred in respect of the reference (with supporting copy paid invoices or other such proof of payment) for the period between the date the notice of reference was filed and 31 December 2017. Those costs will then be summarily assessed, and the amount awarded will be deducted from the costs incurred by the Council post 31 December 2017 (which are summarily assessed below) and which I determine the claimants should pay.74. The Council provided Costs Schedules at the opening of the hearing on 10 January 2018 together with updates that include work undertaken following the hearing. They can be summarised as (post 31 December 2017):1. Council’s in-house Solicitors’ costs (Fabian Peter - 5 hrs 12 min @ £165 per hr) £ 858.00 2. Counsel’s fees £ 3,975.003. Expert witness charges (post hearing)