Preliminary
15. On 8 January 2018 at 16.41, the Council’s Civil Litigation solicitor sent an email to the Tribunal saying that it was intended to email an application for costs and a costs schedule “tomorrow” and asked whether a fee was required. The application was duly sent on 9 January 2018, one day before the hearing, seeking summary assessment of its costs “to be placed before the Tribunal on 10 January” and enclosed two detailed schedules. The first, in the sum of £2,144.10 related to its costs incurred in defending the County Court claim and the second, for £11,502.20 was for its costs in the reference. It was confirmed that copies had been passed to the claimants for their comments. At 11.55 on 9 January the Tribunal responded to the email of 8th, saying that it was far too late for an application to be made, and that the respondents could make their application at the commencement of the hearing. When that application was duly made, I advised that the question of costs in the reference would be dealt with in the normal way after the decision was issued. The matter of costs relating to the court application is considered under issue 4 below. 16. An application was also made at the commencement of the hearing to admit the evidence of Mr Denish Patel, who has lately had responsibility for conduct of this matter on behalf of the Council. He had not produced a witness statement, but nevertheless I allowed the application and gave Mr Yazdiha the opportunity to ask questions of him if he wished to do so.
- Royal Courts of Justice, London WC2A 2LL
- Introduction
- Facts
- Issues
- Statutory provisions
- Basic Loss Payment
- Preliminary
- The evidence
- £19,040.00
- Disturbance to Investment Owners
- I believe I am aware of the CPO process and the rules governing the Council acquisition of the property
- pending the final figure being resolved via negotiated agreement or via the Tribunal Process
- £6,250
- £ 10,000.00
- £ 59,587.50
- ADDENDUM ON COSTS
- £ 406.00
- £3,192.80
