247 Pitsmoor Road, Sheffield S3 9AQ First Applicant Second Applicant MAN/00CG/HNA/2024/0619
DECISION
[64]The Respondent asks the Tribunal to make an Order for costs for the whole proceeding against the Applicants, on the basis of their unreasonable conduct in the proceedings.[65]The Tribunal generally operates a “costs neutral‟ regime whereby each party bears its own costs. The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 (as amended) prohibit the making of an order for costs except in the circumstances described in rule 13(1) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 (“the Rules”).[66]The Tribunal’s powers to award costs derive from to section 13 (1)(a) and (1)(b) of the Rules:[67]Under Rule 13(1)(a) if there is a finding of wasted costs pursuant to section 29(4) of The Tribunal Courts and Enforcement Act [2007] Act where they are incurred by a party—a. as a result of any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of any legal or other representative or any employee of such a representative, orb. which, in the light of any such act or omission occurring after they were incurred, the relevant Tribunal considers it is unreasonable to expect that party to pay.[68]Under Rule 13(1)(b) a party has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting these proceedings.[69]In the leading case of Willow Court Management Co (1985) Limited v Alexander [2016] UK UT 290 (LC); [2016] L.&T.R.34 the Upper Tribunal provided guidance on exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 13, and introduced the three stage test.[70]The First stage is to consider whether (objectively) a person has acted unreasonably. If there is no reasonable explanation for the conduct complained of, the behaviour will properly be adjudged to be unreasonable, and the threshold for the making of an order will have been crossed.[71]If the Tribunal considers that threshold has been reached, the Tribunal will then consider whether, in the light of the unreasonable conduct it has found to have been demonstrated, it ought to make an order for costs or not; it is only if it decides that it should make an order that a third stage is reached when the question is what the terms of that order should be.[72]Whether or not there has been unreasonable conduct is a matter of objective fact. Would a reasonable person, acting reasonably, have acted in this way?[73]The conduct relied upon by the Respondent was that the Applicants had failed to set out their reasons for the appeal at any time, both in the application form and in response to directions, until ordered to do so by the Tribunal at the September 2025 hearing. Further more the Second Applicant had failed to acknowledge receipt of documentation or emails when served and had failed to put his camera on at the September 2025 hearing and “provided evasive, mendacious and inconsistent submissions” when questioned by the Tribunal at the hearing on 29 September 2025.[74]Having taken into account the representations of both parties, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the first limb of the test in Willow Court is satisfied for the whole of the case.[75]The Second Applicant was acting in person for himself and the First Applicant for most of the duration of this application. He had apparently consulted solicitors, but they had not placed themselves on record as representatives under Rule 14 of the Tribunal's rules. The Applicant was entitled to make an appeal and seek a rehearing of the Respondent’s determinations; the Respondent, having imposed the penalties in the first place knew the case that they had to make.[76]The Tribunal has of course already made an order that the Second Applicant pay 50% of the costs in relation to the hearing of the 29th August 2025, with those costs to be assessed as his behaviour was considered unreasonable, so the representations as to his conduct at the hearing, and his part played in the September 2025 hearing having to be adjourned has already resulted in an adverse costs order against him.[77]The conduct in terms of failing to out his case adequately or at all may have been incompetent, but incompetency does not necessarily equate to unreasonable conduct, particularly when it may be explained by the Second Applicant being a litigant in person. The costs lost to the Respondent arising due to the adjournment have already been addressed.[78]. Having considered the N260 provided, and the Applicant’s representations, (which did not refer to this N260), the Tribunal finds the costs reasonable in terms of hourly rates, and time spent. Accordingly, the Tribunal assesses the costs payable by the Second Applicant in the sum of £1417.60 being 50% of the itemised costs of £3,835.20. Tribunal Judge John Murray 3 March 2026