Agincourt Investments Limited v Natasha Joy Williams & Ors

A bundle of photographs appended to a Scott Schedule does not, by itself, establish what the photographs show or when and where they were taken. Where their authenticity or relevance has been challenged before the hearing, the party relying on them risks the tribunal preferring the other party’s expert evidence if it has not provided evidence explaining or verifying them. A tribunal may refuse an offer to provide new evidence in the middle of a hearing where admitting it would be unfair to the other party. The judgment leaves open how a properly made application to file late evidence before the hearing might be treated.

Agincourt Investments Limited, the landlord of a building containing five leasehold flats, appealed a First-tier Tribunal decision on service charges disputed by the leaseholders. The FTT disallowed or reduced charges for major works after accepting evidence from the leaseholders’ expert that some work had not been done or completed to a reasonable standard. The landlord’s appeal, from the FTT decision of 9 December 2024 (ref LON/00AL/LSC/2023/0112), challenged the treatment of photographs appended to its Scott Schedule. The central issue was whether the FTT erred by failing to take account of those photographs. Other complaints raised by the landlord were not grounds on which permission to appeal had been granted.

1. The appeal failed on the only ground for which permission had been granted. The FTT was entitled to prefer the leaseholders’ expert evidence over the landlord’s photographs.

2. The photographs had been appended to the Scott Schedule but were not verified or explained by a witness statement. The landlord had not established who took them, where or when they were taken, or what they showed. The leaseholders had challenged their authenticity and relevance weeks before the hearing, but the landlord did not provide supporting evidence before the hearing. A bundle of photographs, without that evidential foundation, did not require the FTT to accept them as evidence. The landlord had taken a considerable risk by submitting them in that form ([16]–[21]).

3. The FTT was entitled to refuse the offer, made during the hearing, to provide metadata. The tribunal could not fairly admit new evidence at that stage. The judge left open how the FTT might have dealt with an application, made before the hearing, to file a late witness statement ([20]).

4. The landlord’s complaints about allegedly late additions to the Scott Schedule were not grounds of appeal. The judge found that most of the items said to be new had already appeared in the landlord’s July schedule; the FTT had made no decision on two others. Even if there had been an error concerning the three remaining items, the complaint that the landlord had been ambushed appeared to lack substance ([22]–[27]).

5. By agreement, the FTT decision was set aside insofar as it placed items 6.10 to 6.13 in category 1. The judge gave directions aimed at resolving the sums payable; if the parties could not resolve the remaining queries about item numbering, those points were to be remitted to the FTT ([31]–[32]).

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): The appeal failed on the ground for which permission was granted. By agreement, the FTT decision was set aside as to items 6.10–6.13. Directions were given to resolve the sums payable, with the queried numbering points to be remitted to the FTT if unresolved.
• First-tier Tribunal, Property Chamber: On 9 December 2024, under ref LON/00AL/LSC/2023/0112, the FTT determined the disputed major works service charges, disallowing or reducing charges across several categories.