The Kingdom Hall Trust v Peter Robert Davies

Where a costs application is made shortly outside the prescribed period, the tribunal may extend time where the delay is minimal, no prejudice has been suffered, and the extension accords with the overriding objective. Costs ordinarily follow the event. A cross-appeal pursued only as an alternative means of maintaining the outcome below is not unreasonable merely because it fails, particularly where it adds little time or expense. The tribunal may summarily assess costs on paper where that is plainly appropriate and may make a reasonable and proportionate reduction to the amount claimed.

This was a costs decision following an appeal and cross-appeal in land-registration proceedings. Both challenges had failed, and the decision of the First-tier Tribunal, in which the respondent had succeeded, was upheld. The respondent sought his costs. The appellant argued that the application was out of time and that the cross-appeal had been pursued unreasonably. The tribunal also had to determine the appropriate method and amount of assessment.

1. The appeal and cross-appeal had failed, and the respondent was entitled to his costs in the ordinary way.
2. Under rule 10 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010, the costs application was technically late. It was made only a few minutes after the agreed deadline, no prejudice had resulted, and the tribunal had overlooked the parties’ contemplated order. Having regard to the overriding objective, it was plainly appropriate to extend time.
3. The cross-appeal had been pursued only in case the appeal succeeded and was, in substance, another means of seeking to uphold the outcome below. It had not been unreasonable to pursue it. It had taken little time, and little additional cost had been incurred. No reduction was therefore made on that account.
4. The tribunal declined to decide whether the First-tier Tribunal had power to assess costs incurred in the Upper Tribunal. It was plainly appropriate for the Upper Tribunal itself to assess the costs summarily on paper.
5. The claimed costs were reduced to a reasonable and proportionate sum. The respondent’s costs were summarily assessed at £33,500 plus VAT of £6,700, totalling £40,200, payable by the appellant.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): The appeal and cross-appeal failed. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision was upheld, and the respondent was awarded £40,200 in assessed costs.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): The respondent was successful. The decision was upheld by the Upper Tribunal.