Steven Robert Coogan & Anor v Maryam Taheri & Anor

Decision date: 1 September 2025

Neutral citation: [2025] UKUT 293 (LC)

Overall AI summary confidence: medium

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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: medium

This appeal challenges a First-tier Tribunal costs order for £70,000 made against tenants under rule 13(1)(b) following four linked applications about 9A Belsize Crescent. The FTT applied the three-stage Willow Court approach, found much of the tenants’ pleaded case hopeless or vexatious (only one s.22 allegation was proved) and exercised its discretion to award costs. The Upper Tribunal is asked to review whether the FTT misapplied the unreasonable-conduct test and whether it erred in exercising its discretion as to liability and quantum.

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

From the judgment as recorded, the governing ratio is that rule 13(1)(b) permits a costs order where a party has acted unreasonably, but such a finding does not compel an order: the tribunal must undertake a discretionary second-stage enquiry on whether to award costs and, if so, on what terms. Unreasonable conduct includes vexatious or harassing behaviour and requires more than mere failure of a claim; there must be no reasonable explanation for the conduct.

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 identify non-binding observations that a party’s unrepresented status is a relevant factor in the objective assessment of reasonableness, and that a costs decision need not be lengthy but should specify the unreasonable conduct found, the factors considered in deciding to award costs, and factors relevant to quantifying the award.