[2024] UKUT 253 (LC)

Fecha: 10-Sep-2024

Conclusions

What order should be made?

68.

This is the second discretionary decision.

69.

Relevant to this decision is the extent of the order sought, which is an order that the respondents pay all the costs incurred by the holders of the cluster units, and the costs incurred in relation to jurisdiction by the holders of the studios.

70.

The first part of that is easy. Either the applications should not have been made against the appellants who hold cluster units, or they should have been brought in a very different form resulting in their incurring no or minimal costs. Therefore I take the view that a costs order should be made against the respondents in favour of the appellants who hold cluster units. I order that the respondents should pay 90% of those costs, summarily assessed on the standard basis (see below).

71.

More difficult is the proposition that the respondents should pay the costs incurred in relation to jurisdiction by those of the appellants who hold studio rooms. The appellants argue that if the respondents had not issued proceedings against the cluster units the respondents would not have had to make any arguments about jurisdiction.

72.

I do not think that is correct. The FTT sought representations about jurisdiction in relation to the studios as well as the cluster units (see paragraph 18 above; the FTT was concerned about jurisdiction in relation to “some or all of the student units”); even had there been no proceedings against the cluster units the appellants who hold studios would still have been directed by the FTT to respond in relation to jurisdiction. There was then a real dispute, because of the position adopted by the Second Group of leaseholders, which gave rise to a directions hearing in December 2022 and then to a decision by the FTT on the written representations without any further argument.

73.

Accordingly I do not think that it would right to require the respondents to pay the costs incurred in relation to jurisdiction in relation to the appellants who hold studios; they were bound to incur costs in argument about jurisdiction in any event.

Summary assessment

74.

So I turn to the amount sought by the appellants. Their application was accompanied by a Bill of Costs in the sum of £27,578.69, including solicitors’ fees, counsel’s fee for written submissions and for the directions hearing in December 2022, and VAT payable by 13 out of the leaseholders represented by Mishcon de Reya. The appellants between them own 77 cluster units and 22 studios, and therefore the bill, divided by 99, equates to £278.57 for each unit. 90% of £278.57 is £250.71, say £251.

75.

In terms of the quantum of costs, the respondents have provided no assistance to the Tribunal beyond a generalised assertion that they are too high and that they involve duplication. The appellants point out that had they each instructed separate solicitors the total costs would have been far higher. Overall I regard the costs as reasonable; on the information available to me any reduction would be arbitrary and I decline to make one.

76.

Accordingly the respondents to pay to the appellants who hold cluster units the sum of £19,327 (being £251 x 77), pursuant to rule 13(1)(b) of the FTT’s rules.

Upper Tribunal Judge Elizabeth Cooke

10 September 2024

Right of appeal

Any party has a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal on any point of law arising from this decision. The right of appeal may be exercised only with permission. An application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal must be sent or delivered to the Tribunal so that it is received within 1 month after the date on which this decision is sent to the parties (unless an application for costs is made within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties, in which case an application for permission to appeal must be made within 1 month of the date on which the Tribunal’s decision on costs is sent to the parties). An application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, identify the alleged error or errors of law in the decision, and state the result the party making the application is seeking. If the Tribunal refuses permission to appeal a further application may then be made to the Court of Appeal for permission.

SCHEDULE OF APPELLANTS

Unit number(s)	Respondent's Name	FTT Case Number(s)	Type of room
B54	Ser Seng Lau	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0267	Studio
B53	Ah Cheng Gan	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0266	Studio
A118	Behroze Jimmy Tantra	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0142	Cluster room
A35	Mei Yuen Chee Siew Soon Chee	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0098	Cluster room
A12	Chen Sook Lee	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0057	Cluster room
A90	Chooi Kin Tan	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0110	Studio
A74	Connie Yoke Kim Tan Samantha Yen Li Ng	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0085	Cluster room
B135	David Leslie Allan	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0349	Cluster room
B94	David Baruchi	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0307	Cluster room
A36	Doreen Ming Ai Tang	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0101	Cluster room
A150	Sivamalar K Rudra A/L Thiyagarajah	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0175	Studio
B147	EbunOluwa Andrew Adeola Taiwo Andrew	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0361	Cluster room
A25	Eno Omini	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0043	Cluster room
A18	Ganesh Kumar Kumarasamy	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0073	Cluster room
A65	Gorcaran Singh	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0068	Cluster room
A47	Harris Jivaraj Possible Sew Choon Wong	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0032	Cluster room
A78	Ilhana Desai	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0090	Cluster room
B52 & B81	Imran Patel Salim Patel	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0265 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0294	Studio Studio
A95 & A122	Joachim Karl Trell	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0116 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0146	Cluster room Studio
B14	Dr Karrar Talib Abdulameer Albadosh	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0227	Studio
A10	Kim Lin Chua	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0052	Cluster room
A32	Kim Yan Tan	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0091	Studio
A59	Pey Ling Kow	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0059	Studio
A27	Wai Kuan Law	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0071	Cluster room
A82	Wei Heong Law	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0097	Cluster room
B133	Weng Yew Lee Ean Nee Tan	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0347	Cluster room
B144 & B146	Damien-Pierre Lesot Brigitte Francoise Begasse	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0358 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0360	Cluster room Cluster room
B160	Liow Bee Lian	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0374	Studio
A52	Mageswarey Perumal	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0041	Cluster room
B70	Quek Meng Kwee Lim Beng Kin	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0283	Studio
B141	Meng Yee Chong	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0355	Studio
A89 & A92	Mohammed Jamal Al-Ammari	MAN/00BY/L8C/2022/0108 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0112	Studio Studio
A9	Ahmad Fareez Farhan Bin Mohd Ridzwan Jaswant Naaimah Abdullah	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0051	Cluster room
B25	Noriza Binti Ibak	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0238	Studio
A34	Ling Pang	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0096	Cluster room
B110	Pooi Shun Loh Pooi Kwan Loh Chee Wai Loh	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0323	Studio
A17	S C Shailendra S S Chandran	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0070	Cluster room
B98	Sarfraz Bashir Patel	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0311	Studio
A22	Tai Fong Siew	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0035	Cluster room
A66	Su Li	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0072	Cluster room
A19	Phang Hau Thew	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0074	Cluster room
A30	Wee Yoong Lim Tze Siou Lee	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0084	Studio
A68	Nyook Ngor Wong	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0077	Cluster room
A48	Siew Yean Yap Hong Le Lee	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0033	Cluster room
A62	Yun Siong Chow	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0063	Studio
B95	Yuval Ragoler	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0308	Cluster room
A20	Shyh Min Liew	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0076	Cluster room
A15, A16, A39, A40, A41, A42, A43 & A44	Bei Zong	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0066 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0069 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0109 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0114 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0117 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0119 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0120 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0028	Cluster room Cluster room Cluster room Cluster room Cluster room Cluster room Cluster room Cluster room
A11 & A38	Yau Kim Foo/Ewe Kim Foo Yong Yoke Kheng	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0053 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0105	Cluster room Cluster room
A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, B9, B10, B11, B12, B13, B28, B29, B33, B35, B36, B37, B38, B62, B63, B64, B65, B66 & B67	Zaid Alothman Holding Ltd	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0038 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0042 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0045 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0047 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0048 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0050 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0216 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0217 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0218 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0219 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0220 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0221 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0222 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0223 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0224 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0225 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0226 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0241 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0242 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0246 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0248 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0249 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0250 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0251 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0275 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0276 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0277 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0278 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0279 MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0280	Cluster room Cluster room Cluster room Cluster room Cluster room Cluster room Cluster room Cluster room Cluster room Cluster room Cluster room Cluster room Cluster room Cluster room Cluster room Cluster room Cluster room Cluster room Cluster room Cluster room Cluster room Cluster room Cluster room Cluster room Cluster room Cluster room Cluster room Cluster room Cluster room Cluster room
A81	Melissa Teoh Yi Ying Michelle Teoh Suet Er	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0095	Cluster room
B115	Melek Cepli	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0328	Cluster room
B56	Fang Hong	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0269	Cluster room
A23	Zhao Chongyang	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0037	Cluster room
B39	Yuehua Qin	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0252	Studio
B41	Ryfat Yusubov Samira Yusubova	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0254	Studio
A63	Nayanbhai Nanavati Roopande Nanavati	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0065	Cluster room
B109	Pascal Varanfrain	MAN/00BY/LBC/2022/0322	Cluster room