![[2023] UKUT 108 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png){kind=logo}
Procedural defaults
Procedural defaults
Anyone familiar with the FTT’s service charge jurisdiction will be aware that procedural defaults of the kind complained of here – late filing of a statement of case, failure of disclosure and so on - are by no means unusual. The FTT would rarely regard the kind of defaults mentioned here as so serious as to bring a party within the rule 13(1)(b) jurisdiction and it is perhaps unsurprising that it did not give separate consideration in its decision to the procedural defaults; they are I think sufficiently summed up in the general conclusion at paragraph 75: “the conduct of the proceedings, save as dealt with below, was not such that any further order for costs pursuant to Rule 13 should be made”.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The background
- What happened after GP Holidays went into administration
- The costs application and the decision in the FTT
- The FTT’s grant of permission to appeal
- Ground 1
- Grounds 2 and 3: too narrow a focus
- Bringing and conducting proceedings to recover charges set without any reasonable basis, and prematurely
- Company law defaults
- Procedural defaults
- Mr Gubbay’s conduct and the conflict of interest
- The conduct of the hearing
- Conclusions