[2023] UKUT 197 (LC)
Upper Tribunal Lands Chamber

[2023] UKUT 197 (LC)

Fecha: 14-Ago-2023

Disposal

Disposal

87.

The outcome so far is that the appeal is dismissed to the extent that it related to Mr Davies’ liability to pay £616.60 as a service charge and £840 as administration charges, and his liability for those sums is confirmed, but the appeal is otherwise allowed and the remainder of the FTT’s decision is set aside.

88.

This Tribunal has no power to interfere with the order made by the County Court. If Mr Davies wishes to see that order set aside, he must apply to the County Court itself, relying on this decision to show that, for the most part, the sum for which judgment was entered was not payable. In that regard I note that County Court proceedings included a claim for interest on unpaid service charges at the rate of 10% provided for by clause 10(i) of the lease. The calculation of interest is a matter for the Court, but the sum for which judgment was given was inclusive of interest and was therefore too high both as regards principal and interest. The sum should be recalculated taking account of the correct charges, and the effect of limitation on the interest payable on the £616.60 service charge.

89.

As I have previously noted, the FTT did not determine the application made by Mr Davies under paragraph 5A of Schedule 11, 2002 Act, for protection against the litigation costs in the FTT. Its omission would have been the subject of issue 5, but it is not necessary to deal with it because I have set aside the FTT’s assessment of the costs payable and I have power to substitute the order it should have made. I will give the parties permission to make any further submissions they wish, within 14 days, dealing with the assessment of the contractual costs and the application under paragraph 5A, in each case only so far as they concern the FTT proceedings.

90.

Mr Davies has also made an application under paragraph 5A for protection against administration charges payable in respect of the appeal to this Tribunal. He has achieved a substantial measure of success, though he remains liable for £1,456 £840. The parties may also make further submissions on the appropriate order in respect of the contractual costs of the appeal.

Martin Rodger KC,

Deputy Chamber President

14 August 2023