The Kingdom Hall Trust v Peter Robert Davies

COSTS DECISION

1. The appellant’s appeal and the respondent’s cross-appeal in this matter both failed. The decision below, in which the respondent was successful, was upheld.

2. The parties accept that there is jurisdiction to make a costs order. The respondent seeks his costs of the appeal, including the cross-appeal. The appellant contends that the respondent is out of time to seek his costs; but while, subject to that point, accepting that the respondent should have its costs of its successful appeal, contends that the cross-appeal was unsuccessful and pursued unreasonably, and that the appellant should only have 75% of his costs of the appeal and cross-appeal together.

3. The decision of the tribunal disposing of the appeal and cross-appeal was sent to the parties on 29 August 2025. By rule 10 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010 an application for an order for costs may be made at any time during the proceedings but may not be made later than 14 days after the date on which, inter alia, the Tribunal sends a decision notice recording the decision which finally disposes of all issues in the proceedings. The appellant argues that accordingly the respondent’s application for his costs of the appeal, which was made by his skeleton argument dated 12 September 2025 at 17.17, was out of time.

4. The tribunal had sought a draft order from the parties to give effect to its decision and to deal with any other matters. It had not formally extended time for a costs application. The parties negotiated, and eventually a form of order was agreed subject to the view of this Tribunal. It contemplated the making of an application for costs by 4pm on 12 September 2025. As a result of an oversight, the Tribunal did not consider it, and no order was made. Strictly, the statutory time period applies, therefore. The application for costs was made after the time for which it provided, but only by a few minutes. No prejudice has been suffered. Having regard to the overriding objective it is plainly appropriate to extend time for the respondent costs application.

5. The respondent was successful in opposing the appeal and costs should follow the event in the ordinary way. That is not in dispute. The cross-appeal was only pursued in case the point taken on the appeal should succeed. It was, in effect, only another way of seeking to uphold the outcome below. The cross-appeal was not unreasonable to be pursued. It took little time, and little cost can have been incurred in addressing it. The vast majority of the effort and expense of the parties was concerned with the appeal. Taking everything into account, no reduction should be made for the costs of the proceedings before this Tribunal because of the cross-appeal. The respondent should have 100% of the costs of the appeal and cross-appeal.

6. The parties are agreed that assessment should be on the standard basis.

7. The respondent proposes that either the costs be summarily assessed on paper by this Tribunal, or be assessed the First-tier Tribunal at the same time as it as assesses the costs below. The appellant invites this Tribunal to make a summary assessment, and argues that the First-tier Tribunal does not have power to assess costs of proceedings before this Tribunal.

8. This tribunal does not need to decide whether the First-tier Tribunal has a power to assess the costs of the appeal proceedings because it considers that it is plainly appropriate summarily to assess the costs of the appeal on paper itself.

9. The respondent instructed counsel on a public access basis. The cost of the respondent appear from Counsel’s fee note, which sets out all the costs from and including the costs incurred on 27 December 2024, immediately after permission to appeal was granted, and amount in aggregate to £40,020 plus VAT.

10. The parties have made written submissions about the quantum of costs, and no further provision needs to be made for submissions in that regard.

11. Dealing with individual items, it appears that a deduction of £1500 ought to be made from the item claimed at £4500 on 19 January 2025; of £2100 from the item claimed at £6,500 on 27 February 2025; and of £1500 from the item claimed at £3000 on 2 September 2025; in order to reach a reasonable and proportionate sum in respect of those items; and that the balance of £34920 plus VAT of £6984 amounting in total to £41904 ought to be reduced to £33500 plus VAT of £6700 amounting in total to £40,200 in order to arrive at a reasonable and proportionate sum overall.

12. The costs of the respondent are accordingly summarily assessed in the sum of £33500 plus VAT of £6700 amounting in total to £40,200 and are to be paid by the appellant. His Honour Judge Neil Cadwallader 19 December 2025 Right of appeal Any party has a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal on any point of law arising from this decision. The right of appeal may be exercised only with permission. An application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal must be sent or delivered to the Tribunal so that it is received within 1 month after the date on which this decision is sent to the parties (unless an application for costs is made within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties, in which case an application for permission to appeal must be made within 1 month of the date on which the Tribunal’s decision on costs is sent to the parties). An application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, identify the alleged error or errors of law in the decision, and state the result the party making the application is seeking. If the Tribunal refuses permission to appeal a further application may then be made to the Court of Appeal for permission.