Canary Riverside Estate Management Limited & Ors v J Abrahart & Ors

Under rule 10(10) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010, the period for applying for costs runs from the decision notice finally disposing of the proceedings before the Upper Tribunal, even where the appeal concerns an interlocutory decision in proceedings continuing below. The Tribunal may extend that period under rule 5(3), including after expiry, and should assess the seriousness and consequences of the delay proportionately. An appeal against a case-management decision may amount to unreasonable conduct where it had no realistic prospect of success, relied on points not put to the lower tribunal, or sought indirectly to reopen an earlier decision. Costs may then be ordered where fairness and justice require it, despite the usual no-costs rule in tribunal proceedings.

The appellants had appealed to the Upper Tribunal against a case-management decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) dated 9 December 2024. The appeal was dismissed on 16 April 2025, with the decision subsequently reported as [2025] UKUT 246 (LC).

The respondents applied for costs under rule 10(3)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010, alleging unreasonable conduct in bringing and pursuing the appeal. The applications were made eight days outside the 14-day period in rule 10(10). The issues were whether time should be extended, whether the appellants had acted unreasonably, whether costs should be awarded, and the appropriate sums.

1. Time for costs applications. The applications were out of time. The proceedings referred to in rule 10(10) were the proceedings before the Upper Tribunal, not the continuing proceedings before the First-tier Tribunal. The relevant date was 16 April 2025, when the decision notice recording the final disposal of the appeal was sent. The later preparation and publication of the transcript did not alter that date.
2. Extension of time. Rules 5(3) and 7 gave the Tribunal power to extend time or waive the requirement, including after expiry. The eight-day delay was trivial, caused no prejudice, and did not affect the concluded appeal. The Tribunal’s rules did not require the formalities relied on by the appellants, such as witness statements or application fees. Time was extended.
3. Unreasonable conduct. Applying the guidance in Willow Court Management Co (1985) Ltd v Alexander and the practical question identified in Lea v Ilfracombe Management Co Ltd, the relevant question was whether a reasonable person would have acted in the same way and whether there was a reasonable explanation. The appellants were professionally represented and should have appreciated the restraints on appellate review of case-management decisions. They had not asked the First-tier Tribunal to determine the application summarily, advanced new grounds on appeal, and sought to use the appeal to challenge an earlier Upper Tribunal decision. There was no realistic prospect of success. Genuine difficulties concerning building safety did not justify pursuing a hopeless appeal.
4. Costs and assessment. Although tribunal proceedings generally attract no order for costs, these unusually intensive proceedings had generated unnecessary expense for private individuals and the tribunal-appointed manager. It was fair and just to order costs under rule 10(3)(b). The appellants were ordered to pay £17,760 to the first respondent, £5,000 to the second respondent, and £30,000 to the third respondent, payable within 14 days.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): The appellants’ appeal against the First-tier Tribunal’s case-management decision was dismissed on 16 April 2025. The decision was subsequently reported as [2025] UKUT 246 (LC).
• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): Costs applications were granted in part. Time was extended and costs were awarded in reduced sums.