Supreme Court Cost

[Jeff Gaines]

Can anyone make a stab at the cost of a day in the Supreme Court including
your legal team and court fees?

I am in touch with a leaseholder on another one of my landlords' estates
who is blithely talking of taking a case to the Supreme Court and I don't
think he has any idea what it could cost.

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant

[The Todal]

On 18/09/2021 11:21, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> Can anyone make a stab at the cost of a day in the Supreme Court
> including your legal team and court fees?
>
> I am in touch with a leaseholder on another one of my landlords' estates
> who is blithely talking of taking a case to the Supreme Court and I
> don't think he has any idea what it could cost.
>

How far has the case got, so far? Has there been a first-instance
decision by a judge? Has the case then gone to appeal?

Those who are determined to take a case to the "highest court in the
land" need to know that the highest court in the land may not be willing
to hear the case because there is no point of law worthy of debate.

Your question is impossible to answer, anyway. When a case of mine went
to the Supreme Court it was heard over several days and involved many
barristers and the costs were well over a million pounds to say nothing
of the costs below (ie in lower courts) which had to be paid as well.
Some cases might take no more than a day and involve just four advocates
- one assumes a silk plus a junior on each side.

[notya...@gmail.com]

You have to start in the County Court if the claim is less than £100k, you can only get to the Supreme Court after appealing to the High Court (if you started in the county court), and the Appeal Court. If the claim is money only then it can be run in the small claims court if less than £10k (£1k PI and disrepair), but costs are not awarded.

County / High Court £3k+ per full day - depends a bit on the price of counsel used.
add a nought for Appeal and another for Supreme.

The claimant pays the court fees in advance.
If you win the loser pays [if they can], but if they go bust you will still have to pay your own costs.

[GB]

On 18/09/2021 11:21, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>

> Can anyone make a stab at the cost of a day in the Supreme Court
> including your legal team and court fees?
>
> I am in touch with a leaseholder on another one of my landlords' estates
> who is blithely talking of taking a case to the Supreme Court and I
> don't think he has any idea what it could cost.
>

Say, for a moment, that the lowest possible cost is £50k or maybe £100k.
For your purposes, I assume trying to persuade the leaseholder that it's
just not worth it, does it matter which of those figures applies?

Bear in mind that, even if he wins, he'll probably only get about 70% of
his expenses back from the other side.

Besides that, what important point of law does he want the SC to consider?

[Norman Wells]

On 18/09/2021 11:21, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>

> Can anyone make a stab at the cost of a day in the Supreme Court
> including your legal team and court fees?
>
> I am in touch with a leaseholder on another one of my landlords' estates
> who is blithely talking of taking a case to the Supreme Court and I
> don't think he has any idea what it could cost.

I doubt if he has any idea either of the legal system. You don't have
any automatic right to take a case even to the Court of Appeal. You
have to get leave to do so, and that will only be granted if there's an
important point of law that needs to be determined.

There won't be; there very rarely is.

[Jeff Gaines]

On 18/09/2021 in message <xn0n3112f...@news.individual.net> Jeff
Gaines wrote:

[snipped]

Many thanks for all the replies :-)

He has said "Unlawful behaviour when executing a contract and complying
with the law is “a very knotty problem” and depends of the circumstances."

He gave a link to the source of that statement but he also asserts that if
our landlord breaches our leases and breaks the law (by not providing
invoices in support of service fees) then the contract (lease) becomes
illegal, he has no legal background.

I just wanted an idea of costs so I could gently point them out to him so
thanks for the estimates and caveats!

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK

There is absolutely no substitute for a genuine lack of preparation

[TTman]

On 19/09/2021 09:42, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 18/09/2021 in message <xn0n3112f...@news.individual.net> Jeff
> Gaines wrote:
>
> [snipped]
>
> Many thanks for all the replies :-)
>
> He has said "Unlawful behaviour when executing a contract and complying
> with the law is “a very knotty problem” and depends of the circumstances."
>
> He gave a link to the source of that statement but he also asserts that
> if our landlord breaches our leases and breaks the law (by not providing
> invoices in support of service fees) then the contract (lease) becomes
> illegal, he has no legal background.
>
> I just wanted an idea of costs so I could gently point them out to him
> so thanks for the estimates and caveats!
>

You basically sue for some tangible financial loss, usually. Where is
the loss in failing to provide this invoice ? Very generally, a loss is
usually because a contract has not been fullfilled. That could be due to
bad workmanship, faulty or sub standard materials, taking a deposit and
doing a 'runner'.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[David McNeish]

On Sunday, 19 September 2021 at 14:06:09 UTC+1, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 18/09/2021 in message <xn0n3112f...@news.individual.net> Jeff
> Gaines wrote:
>
> [snipped]
>
> Many thanks for all the replies :-)
>
> He has said "Unlawful behaviour when executing a contract and complying
> with the law is “a very knotty problem” and depends of the circumstances."
>
> He gave a link to the source of that statement but he also asserts that if
> our landlord breaches our leases and breaks the law (by not providing
> invoices in support of service fees) then the contract (lease) becomes
> illegal

What does he think "becomes illegal" actually means?

[notya...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, 19 September 2021 at 14:06:09 UTC+1, Jeff Gaines wrote:

> On 18/09/2021 in message <xn0n3112f...@news.individual.net> Jeff
> Gaines wrote:
>
> [snipped]
>
> Many thanks for all the replies :-)
>
> He has said "Unlawful behaviour when executing a contract and complying
> with the law is “a very knotty problem” and depends of the circumstances."
>
> He gave a link to the source of that statement but he also asserts that if
> our landlord breaches our leases and breaks the law (by not providing
> invoices in support of service fees) then the contract (lease) becomes
> illegal, he has no legal background.

There is no need for invoices for service charges, although there often is for [annual] service accounts or s.20 notices. There is a requirement for notice for ground rent demands, with particular words required for them to be enforceable, however the freehold may not owned nor even collected by the management agents / company.

In any event any mistake would render the document unlawful not illegal.

[Jeff Gaines]

On 19/09/2021 in message <xn0n32d02...@news.individual.net> Jeff

Gaines wrote:

>I just wanted an idea of costs so I could gently point them out to him so
>thanks for the estimates and caveats!

Thanks for the follow ups :-)

The trail is as follows:

******************

The lease says:

2 As soon as practicable after the end of each such year and in any ease
within six months thereof the Association shall render to the Tenant a
Maintenance Account showing the Maintenance cost actually expended during
the year and shall certify the actual amount of the Tenant's liability in
respect of the Maintenance cost for that year

3 Within seven days after receiving a Maintenance Account the Tenant shall
be entitled upon giving reasonable notice of his intention to inspect
vouchers and receipts for the items included in the Maintenance Account at
the offices of the Association and of its managing agent

The Landlord & Tenant Act 985 says:

22 Request to inspect supporting accounts &c.

(1) This section applies where a tenant, or the secretary of a recognised
tenants’
association, has obtained such a summary as is referred to in section
21(1) (summary
of relevant costs), whether in pursuance of that section or otherwise.

(2) The tenant, or the secretary with the consent of the tenant, may
within six months
of obtaining the summary require the landlord in writing to afford him
reasonable
facilities—

(a) for inspecting the accounts, receipts and other documents supporting the
summary, and

(b) for taking copies or extracts from them

******************

We have never had problems obtaining the invoice file but some estates
have and so started proceedings at a First Tier Tribunal to get them. The
landlord (or perhaps managing agent, it refuses to say which) then
produced the invoices. One estate then put them in a spreadsheet and lo &
behold they are just under £40K shy of the amount shown in the estate
accounts.

It's the chap who instigated the whole thing who is threatening the
Supreme Court, I am losing track of why but it's something to do with his
view that if the landlord breaks the law then the lease is illegal. I
suspect it's inefficiency and mistakes by the accounts department but we
are all starting to produce spreadsheets so we can scope the problem out.
If it comes to it the First Tier Tribunal will be the place to go.

[tim...]

"GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:si4i77$8l1$1...@dont-email.me...

As this is a LH dispute he likely wont get any of it back

Even fairly benign LHs have clauses in them enabling the FH/MA to charge
back to the LHs the cost of defending legal actions brought about by an
individual LH

HMG are consulting on legislating to void such clauses, but haven't done so
yet

As has been said:

There needs to be a very important matter of law here for a LH issue to go
this far.

>From what Jeff has posted in the past this particular FH he is referring to
seems to be one of the worst wrt respecting the rights of Tenants and there
must be scope for easy wins against them where LHs are minded and suitably
briefed to take action.

So if you are taking action on a case that you don't win at first instance,
it's probably advisable to give up on that claim.