[2025] UKUT 97 (LC)

This is an appeal against the refusal of the First-tier Tribunal, Property Chamber (the FTT) to make an award of costs in favour of the appellant, the successful party in a dispute over an improvement notice served by the respondent under Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004 (the 2004 Act).

The appellant, Manaquel Co Ltd, is the registered freehold proprietor of Dorchester Court in Herne Hill (the Estate). The respondent, the London Borough of Lambeth, is the local housing authority for the area which includes the Estate. On 20 October 2021 Lambeth served an improvement notice on Manaquel requiring it to carry out work at the Estate. On 17 November 2023, after a hearing lasting two days, the FTT allowed an appeal by Manaquel and quashed the notice in its entirety.

The FTT is not a forum in which the successful party can usually expect to recover their costs from the unsuccessful party. Under rule 13(1) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 (the Rules) the FTT has power to award costs in a residential property case only under section 29(4) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (wasted costs ordered to be paid by a legal or other representative) or if a person has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting the proceedings.

By a decision handed down on 16 May 2024 (the Costs Decision) the FTT decided that Lambeth had not acted unreasonably and refused Manaquel’s application under rule 13(1)(b) for an order that Lambeth pay its costs of the improvement notice appeal.

The FTT granted permission to appeal the Costs Decision. When it did so it said that the application of the law to the facts, and the weighting of different factors in this case, was complicated.

At the hearing of the appeal Manaquel was represented by Mr Isaac KC and Mr Miller, and Lambeth by Mr Ham, all of whom had appeared before the FTT. I am grateful to them for their submissions.