Steven Robert Coogan v Maryam Taheri
Decision date: 4 November 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKUT 370 (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 concerns landlords' application for the costs of a successful appeal to the Upper Tribunal against a First-tier Tribunal costs order. The Upper Tribunal held that correspondence between parties did not constitute a binding agreement to pay costs and that the tenants did not act unreasonably in bringing or conducting the appeal; accordingly the landlords' application for the appeal costs was dismissed. No order as to costs of and incidental to the appeal was made.
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
From the judgment: (1) correspondence showing agreement in principle on incidence of costs does not constitute a binding agreement unless the parties have reached a concluded agreement on terms; (2) an unsuccessful appeal, without more, does not amount to unreasonable conduct justifying a costs order — unreasonableness must be established by the conduct of bringing, defending or conducting the proceedings.
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 indicated that parties should be able to challenge First-tier Tribunal costs orders on appeal without fear of a costs sanction where the appeal is reasonably pursued, and that efforts to challenge FTT factual findings are not necessarily unreasonable conduct warranting costs.