SILK TREE PROPERTIES LIMITED (2) SUSSEX MOBILE HOMES LIMITED(3) WEST SUSSEX MOBILE HOMES LIMITED v MR & MRS C GRANT & OTHERS
Decision date: 16 December 2015
Neutral citation: [2015] UKUT 686 (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 Upper Tribunal appeal considered whether park owners could contractually recover their legal costs of First-tier Tribunal (F-tT) proceedings from mobile-home occupiers under pre-2006 and post-2006 agreements. The UT held the pre-2006 clause did not permit recovery of the owners’ F-tT legal costs but that the post-2006 clause 4(d) did, in principle, permit recovery of reasonable and properly assessed costs incurred “in respect of giving effect to or requiring performance” of the agreement. The F-tT’s narrower construction limiting clause 4(d) to proactive enforcement was rejected.
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 clause obliging occupiers to pay costs “in respect of giving effect to or requiring performance of” the agreement can cover legal costs incurred defending or responding to an occupier’s F-tT application to determine rights under the agreement, provided those costs are reasonable and subject to assessment and any procedural or cost limits incorporated in the clause; by contrast, broadly worded management/repair charging provisions do not extend to the owners’ tribunal legal costs where the text and context do not support such an expansion.
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 UT observed that policy concerns about deterring occupiers from using the F-tT’s largely no-costs jurisdiction do not override clear contractual language, and that recoverable costs under clause 4(d) remain subject to assessment and any incorporated procedural/cost limitations (for example, CPR-based principles).