Stuart John Pilbrow v Nicola Jane Eileen Glanville & Anor
Decision date: 8 January 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKUT 8 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
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 concerned costs after the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) made no order when the appellant withdrew an adverse possession application following the respondents' late disclosure that the land was held on trust. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT erred in law by taking an irrelevant consideration — that the appellant might not have succeeded absent the trust — and that the respondents' failure to disclose the trust was unreasonable. The UT substituted an order that the respondents pay the appellant's FTT costs, to be summarily assessed on the standard basis.
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
A tribunal exercising a discretion on costs must not take into account hypothetical chances of substantive success that are irrelevant to whether one party's unreasonable conduct caused wasted costs; where a party has late disclosure of a core defence (here a trust) which it could and should have disclosed earlier, that unreasonable conduct can justify an award of costs against it.
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 judgment contains observations that trustees litigating over land should be aware of and disclose trust terms affecting the land, and that inadvertence in failing to disclose material matters may be accepted but does not necessarily avoid cost consequences where disclosure should have been made earlier.