Key Facts
- •Mr. Michael Connell, secretary of a tenants' association, appealed an FTT order requiring him to pay costs.
- •The association's application for recognition under section 29, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, was withdrawn.
- •The FTT ordered costs based on Connell's alleged unreasonable conduct in bringing and conducting the proceedings.
- •The respondents conceded that the FTT's original reasons were insufficient to justify the costs order.
- •The respondents argued that additional, unaddressed conduct justified the order.
- •The association was unincorporated, and the question of who (the association or Connell) brought the proceedings was central.
Legal Principles
FTT's power to make cost orders is subject to Tribunal Procedure Rules, specifically rule 13.
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, and Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013
An unincorporated association cannot sue or be sued unless a statute permits it.
London Association for the Protection of Trade v Greenlands Ltd [1916] 2 AC 15
The word 'person' includes 'a body of persons corporate or unincorporated'.
Section 5 and Schedule 1 of the Interpretation Act 1978
Costs orders should not be routine, used to discourage access to the tribunal, or become major disputes.
Willow Court Management Company (1985) Ltd v Alexander [2016] UKUT 290 (LC)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; the costs order against Mr. Connell was set aside.
Mr. Connell did not bring or conduct the proceedings; he acted as the association's agent. The FTT's reasons for the costs order were insufficient, even considering additional alleged conduct. The association, not Connell, was the applicant.