Costs

Download Print Send a summary of this page to someone via email.

Latest Articles

  Breach of covenant Re: 19 Snowdrop Street, Liverpool, L5 7RT
Jun 24, 2008

The appellants were the freehold owners of a property, which was then let to tenants on a long lease. The lease contained a clause requiring the tenant: “within 28 days of any assignment, charge, underlease or sub-underlease...to pay the Landlord’s solicitor’s charges of £25.00 together with value added tax thereon for the registration of every such document.”
  Rymer v The Court Group of Companies
Jun 5, 2006
In 2004 the applicant had made a previous application to the LVT in respect of service charges for the years 2000 – 2004. It had been determined that the legal fees charged to her accounts in 2002, 2003 and 2004 were properly charged and that interest could be charged on those amounts
  Dr & Mrs Schilling v Canary Riverside Properties
Jun 1, 2006
This was an unusually complex service charge dispute which had already been the subject of two appeals to the Lands Tribunal.
  Ferry Investments v Saunders
Apr 28, 2006
The applicant freeholder had applied for a determination of the reasonableness of service charges. The respondent leaseholder had challenged a number of items. During the course of the hearing he requested an adjournment.
  Aelprop v Lakin
Apr 27, 2006
The case had started as a County Court claim for arrears of service charges, after the matter was transferred to the LVT the claimant freeholder played a very limited role and took no part in the actual hearing. The respondent leaseholder was, unsurprisingly, broadly successful as a result.
  Argyll Mansions v Crawford
Apr 25, 2006
The applicant sought a determination of the respondent’s liability to pay service charges for 2002 to 2005. The respondent was an elderly lady, possibly in her 90’s. She took no part in the proceedings and there were some concerns expressed that she was incapable of managing her own affairs.
  Pasterfield v Southern Land Securities Limited
Jan 17, 2006
At the end of a “standard” service charge dispute, the LVT came to consider s20C. It gave a preliminary indication that it would make an order under s20C and order the reimbursement of application fees.
  Burt v Rowner Estates Limited
Jan 13, 2006
The LVT had earlier found that there were grounds to appoint a new manager and receiver in respect of the property. However, it had not been willing to allow the appointment of the individual suggested by the applicants.
  Nicholas and others v Alexander Wadham-Corn Ltd
Nov 23, 2005
The Defendant was severely criticised for the way in which it handled this litigation. It had been slow to provide documentation to the applicant. It failed to attend the hearing, despite stating that it would be represented.
  Wells and others v London Land Securities Limited
Nov 16, 2005
By the time this case came before the LVT it had largely been resolved. The question of s20C and what, if any, cost protection the leaseholders were entitled to was all that remained in dispute
  Staghold Ltd V (1) Hiko Takeda (2) Sue Matsue Takeda
Oct 31, 2005
The claimant brought a claim for arrears of service charges, legal costs and professional fees and was successful. The applicant then sought to recover its costs by way of a service charge.
  Lessees of Frognal Court v Woolsey, Morris & Kennedy
Oct 31, 2005
This was another case where the sole issue was one of costs, the original application for the variation of a lease having been withdrawn. The LVT found that it would only exercise its costs powers if a party had acted in such a way as to go beyond the “normal range of conduct in ordinary litigation.”
 
more articles >>