A Grantor v A Grantee

Decision date: 3 May 2023

Neutral citation: [2023] UKUT 23 (LC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

Short overview

This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.

AI confidence in this short overview: high

This appeal addressed whether the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) can award costs in a reference by consent under a 1949 Deed of Grant. The Tribunal held it has power to award costs under Rule 10(6)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010 because the claim is for injurious affection, but it does not have power to award costs under section 61 of the Arbitration Act 1996 when acting as arbitrator in such a reference. The earlier conditional costs order for £8,000 was therefore within the Tribunal’s power under Rule 10(6)(b).

Ratio decidendi

This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.

AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high

The binding ratio is that Rule 10(6)(b) of the 2010 Rules should be read broadly so that “injurious affection” includes claims under contractual compensation arrangements assessed by compulsory-acquisition principles, enabling the Tribunal to make costs orders in references by consent; and that rules 3(2) and 30 demonstrate a limited application of Part 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to such references, so unlisted provisions like s.61 do not apply.

Obiter dicta

This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.

AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium

The Tribunal treated the CRG and TPC preparatory materials as admissible aids to purposive interpretation of the Rules, and observed it would be undesirable to read the 2010 Rules as retrospectively removing parties’ pre-existing expectations about costs under contractual arbitration agreements absent clear drafting or transitional provisions.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML