THOMAS NEWALL LIMITED v Lancaster City Council
Decision date: 14 May 2015
Neutral citation: [2015] UKUT 598 (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 a wasted costs application by Thomas Newall Ltd against the acquiring authority’s expert, Mr Andrew Massie, and his firm Keppie Massie LLP, after a prior unsuccessful application against the authority’s solicitors. The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction under section 29(4) of the 2007 Act to make a wasted costs order against an expert who did not act as a representative, and in any event dismissed the late application because the Tribunal had already considered and penalised Mr Massie’s conduct on costs, the matter could not be reopened, and the application was out of time and would risk injustice. The claimant’s claim for exemplary or punitive damages was also summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
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: medium
The Tribunal’s decision indicates that wasted costs orders under the Tribunal’s rules and section 29(4) are directed at legal or other representatives who exercise rights of audience or conduct proceedings; ordinary expert witnesses who do not act as representatives are not proper subjects for such orders. It also applies that where a tribunal has already considered an conduct of an expert and imposed a costs sanction, it is inappropriate to reopen that decision absent compelling reasons.
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 notes record obiter commentary that, in principle, some courts have suggested exceptional third‑party wasted costs orders against expert witnesses might be possible, and that disciplinary measures or other sanctions short of removing witness immunity could be available; however, their application to Tribunal procedure depends on statutory rules and was not adopted in this case.