CATHERINE MARY WILLENS v INFLUENTIAL CONSULTANTS LTD
Decision date: 7 May 2015
Neutral citation: [2015] UKUT 362 (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 whether £2,427 of legal/administration fees charged by landlord Influential Consultants Ltd (ICL) to tenant Catherine Willens were recoverable under lease clause 3(13) as costs "in contemplation of proceedings" (including service of a s.146 notice). The Upper Tribunal reheard the matter, relying in particular on a pre‑instruction email from ICL’s director indicating an intention to pursue forfeiture, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the First‑tier Tribunal’s finding that the fees were so incurred. The Tribunal also held that a later payment by the mortgagee described as "in full and final settlement" did not prevent Mrs Willens from pursuing the appeal.
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
Contemporaneous evidence of the landlord’s state of mind (for example, pre‑instruction communications by the landlord’s director) can establish that legal costs were incurred "in contemplation of proceedings" (including service of a s.146 notice) so as to make them recoverable under a lease provision permitting such recovery. Separately, a third party’s payment described as "in full and final settlement" does not by itself preclude the tenant from challenging liability where the tenant has not agreed or admitted the matter.
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 indicates that the absence of any mention of forfeiture in solicitors’ correspondence does not necessarily undermine clear prior instructions from the landlord’s director; and it contains observational comments on rehearing procedure where the FTT decision was made without a hearing and parties later sought to rely on additional documents.