Anthony Orchard & Anor v Alison Mooney & Anor
Decision date: 11 April 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKUT 89 (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 an FTT costs order finding the appellants had acted unreasonably and ordering them to pay costs under rule 13(1)(b). The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the FTT's costs decision and concluded the appellants had a reasonable explanation for their conduct, in part because relevant material (Mr Pendle’s report) had been withheld and the FTT had not properly assessed all evidence. The UT remitted the matter, allowing parties to apply further on costs within 14 days.
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
An FTT should not find a party acted unreasonably under rule 13(1)(b) without an objective assessment of the party’s conduct in light of all relevant evidence before the tribunal; withholding relevant material (such as a professional report) is a factor that must be taken into account when exercising the discretion to award costs.
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 Upper Tribunal indicated it will generally exercise restraint in reviewing FTT discretionary decisions, focusing on whether the FTT took into account what it ought to and nothing it ought not; and that absence of an alternative management proposal is not necessarily fatal to a removal application if other factors justify the application.