Tag Archive for 'costs'

Page 2 of 3

Permission and costs

By J on 26/04/2011. 0 Comments

Cockett v Moore [2011] EWCA Civ 493 (Casetrack only; noted on the GC Bulletin).

The Court of Appeal has refused permission to appeal in this costs dispute. Mr Moore was the tenant of Ms Cockett in a one bed flat. There appear to have been a series of tenancy agreements and, at times, a romantic relationship. The claim was for possession and alleged arrears of rent. The proceedings were defended (with a counterclaim) on a variety of grounds, including alleged beneficial ownership by Mr Moore.

A possession order was subsequently made (and was never challenged). The rent arrears claim was adjourned for about 6 months. Shortly before the claim came … Read the full post

Posted in FLW case note, Housing law - All and Possession. Tags: .

Now that’s gotta hurt

By J on 16/04/2011. 0 Comments

Just a short note on Leeds cc v Price (LSC intervening) [2011] EWHC 849 (QB) because it isn’t a housing case at all. It’s the costs fall-out from Price v Leeds CC [2006] UKHL 10; [2006] 2 A.C. 465 (the other case with Kay v LB Lambeth). You’ll remember that Leeds won.

After the case, Leeds got a certificate from the Clerk and Taxing Officer of the Judicial Office of the House of Lords for a costs order in the sum of £84,138.94. They then successfully applied to register that certificate as an order of the High Court, with the result (Leeds said) that the LSC should pay up. … Read the full post

Posted in FLW case note, Housing law - All and Possession. Tags: .

Remedying immoral use

By Francis Davey on 29/10/2010. 0 Comments

Patel v K&J Restaurants [2010] EWCA Civ 1211 deals with a number of interesting questions concerning relief from forfeiture. Although the lease in question (of a restaurant and residential flats) fell within the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, the case has wider implications for anyone dealing with relief from forfeiture, particularly where there has been immoral use of the premises.

Patel were the landlords and K&J the tenants. K&J were in breach of their lease in two ways. First a sub-tenant of one of the flats had been using the flat for prostitution — the type example of “immoral user” see Rugby School (Governors) v Tannahill [1935] 1 KB … Read the full post

Posted in Uncategorized. Tags: , , , , , .

RTM costs (or, how not to grant permission to appeal)

By J on 28/09/2010. 0 Comments

Wilson v Lesley Place (RTM) Company Ltd [2010] UKUT 342 (LC)

I confess to being a bit bitter about this case. The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) is hideously overworked. It can (and often does) take over a year for an appeal from an LVT to get before the Upper Tribunal. Matters aren’t helped when cases like this come along and take up the valuable time of the Upper Tribunal.

The respondent was an RTM company and the appellant a non-participating tenant. The RTM company demanded various sums that primarily appeared to relate to the establishment and running of the RTM company (insurance, accountancy fees, Companies House fees, etc) as a … Read the full post

Posted in Housing law - All and Leasehold and shared ownership. Tags: , , .

Jackson: the waiting begins

By NL on 14/01/2010. 5 Comments

‘What!’ I hear you say, ‘wasn’t the final Jackson report on costs released on 14 January?’

Why yes it was. All 584 pages of it. But amid the headlines about scrapping CFA success fees and recoverable ATE insurance premiums, introducing contingency fees, and of course fixed costs for the fast track, for housing lawyers it comes down to a few paragraphs which largely amount to… wait and see. Here, filleted for your ease and comfort are what look like the key bits to me.

Jackson LJ notes that housing law is a hideously complicated mess (my paraphrase), that this is likely to push up litigation costs, and that the … Read the full post

Posted in Disrepair, Housing law - All, Possession and Various (non-housing). Tags: , , .

Costs on conceded appeals

By NL on 09/07/2009. 0 Comments

We had noted City of Westminster v Man [2009] EWCA Civ 236 when it was a permission to appeal hearing. Just a bit late, we have found the outcome. The issue was whether an interim costs order, on an application I think, was payable where proceedings as a whole had been stayed under a Tomlin Order. Mr Man had been ordered to pay £1000 by the court below, despite a Tomlin staying proceedings and giving costs against Westminster on the rest of the case. He appealed, acting in person.

Apparently, once the appeal was given permission, Westminster decided not to oppose it. So the issue was conceded However, they … Read the full post

Posted in Disrepair, FLW case note and Housing law - All. Tags: , , .

Intermittently exposed

By NL on 04/06/2009. 0 Comments

Now, this is a bit of an oddity. Mohammadi v Shellpoint Trustees Ltd & Anor [2009] EWHC 1098 (Ch) was an appeal from the Supreme Court Costs Office. It concerned when a person should have the protection from liability for costs under s.17 Legal Aid Act 1988.

Mrs Mohammadi was a leaseholder who had pursued a disrepair claim, beginning in about 1993, reaching trial on disrepair and forfeiture in 2002, at which she was successful and an appeal to the Court of Appeal, at which she was partially successful, with an order for 75% of costs overall.

Mrs Mohammadi, in the course of this litigation, had had no less than … Read the full post

Posted in Disrepair, FLW case note, Housing law - All and Leasehold and shared ownership. Tags: , , , , , .
row of sheds footer image
3 pages