£70,000 Costs Order Upheld Against Unrepresented Tenants For Vexatious Conduct In The FTT (Property Chamber)

The Upper Tribunal has dismissed an appeal against a £70,000 costs order made under rule 13 tribunal costs provisions, confirming that unrepresented parties pursuing serious allegations without foundation can face substantial costs sanctions. In Coogan v Taheri, Judge Cadwallader upheld the First-tier Tribunal’s decision that tenants had acted unreasonably in bringing vexatious proceedings, demonstrating how rule 13 tribunal costs powers operate even in normally ‘no costs’ jurisdictions.

COOGAN & COOGAN V TAHERI & TAHERI [2025] UKUT 293 (LC)

In Coogan & Anor v Taheri & Anor the Upper Tribunal considered an appeal against a £70,000 costs order made by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) under rule 13(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013. The FTT had made the order after finding the appellant tenants had acted unreasonably in bringing and conducting proceedings, which included an application for the appointment of a manager and a challenge to service charges. The appeal centred on whether the FTT had correctly applied the three-stage test from Willow Court Management Co (1985) Ltd v Alexander [2016] UKUT 290 (LC) for making a costs order in a normally ‘no costs’ jurisdiction, specifically whether the conduct was unreasonable and whether the discretion to award costs was properly exercised. The Upper Tribunal upheld the FTT’s decision, confirming that unreasonable conduct under rule 13(1)(b) includes vexatious behaviour or conduct designed to harass rather than advance resolution, as per Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205. It found the FTT was entitled to conclude the tenants, despite being litigants in person, had pursued obviously hopeless and historically baseless allegations, including serious accusations of fraud and bribery, in a vexatious manner. The tribunal also noted the FTT’s refusal of the tenants’ application under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which was a subsidiary issue on appeal. The appeal was dismissed and the significant costs order stood.

At the first stage the question is whether the person has acted unreasonably. At the second stage it is essential for the tribunal to consider whether, in light of the unreasonable conduct it has found, it ought to make an order for costs or not. If so, the third stage is what the terms of the order should be.

Citations

Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12 Litigants in person are held to the same standards as legal professionals, but the absence of legal advice remains relevant to assessing whether conduct was unreasonable for the purposes of a costs order. Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205 Conduct is unreasonable where it is vexatious or intended to harass, and must be judged by whether it permits a reasonable explanation rather than by its outcome or the standard of more cautious advisers. Willow Court Management Co (1985) Ltd v Alexander [2016] UKUT 290 (LC) The test for awarding costs under rule 13(1)(b) involves a three-stage analysis: determining whether there was unreasonable conduct, whether a costs order is appropriate, and deciding on the order’s terms without requiring a causal nexus between conduct and specific costs.

Key Points

A finding of unreasonable conduct under rule 13(1)(b) requires the application of an objective standard: the conduct must lack a reasonable explanation when judged against what a reasonable person in the same circumstances (including experience, intelligence, and legal representation) would have done. [7–11]
Unreasonable conduct under rule 13(1)(b) includes vexatious or abusive pursuit of allegations, disproportionate refusal to engage, and advancing hopeless claims, but does not encompass merely being unsuccessful or pursuing novel arguments. [7, 8, 13]
The fact a party is unrepresented and lacks legal training is relevant when assessing whether their conduct was unreasonable; their actions must be assessed in the context of their actual knowledge and experience. [11, 17–18]
Once a tribunal has determined that a party acted unreasonably, the exercise of discretion to award costs must be based on a proper consideration of the nature, seriousness, and consequences of the conduct, without requiring a causal link between specific costs and the conduct. [10, 12, 16, 33]
An appellate tribunal should not interfere with a discretionary costs order under rule 13(1)(b) unless the First-tier Tribunal misdirected itself, considered irrelevant matters, failed to consider relevant matters, or reached a perverse or irrational conclusion. [13, 32–33]

"'Unreasonable' conduct includes conduct which is vexatious, and designed to harass the other side rather than advance the resolution of the case. It is not enough that the conduct leads in the event to an unsuccessful outcome. The test may be expressed in different ways. Would a reasonable person in the position of the party have conducted themselves in the manner complained of? Or Sir Thomas Bingham's 'acid test': is there a reasonable explanation for the conduct complained of?"

Key Findings In The Case

The First-tier Tribunal found that the appellants had acted unreasonably in bringing and pursuing their applications, including making allegations that were unsupported, inherently implausible, vexatiously pursued, and in some cases knowingly false or dishonest, particularly via repeated accusations of harassment and serious criminal misconduct without evidence [FTT paras. 7–14; UT paras. 20–21, 25–26].
The FTT concluded that the appellants’ lack of legal representation did not excuse their conduct, because they were intelligent individuals, one of whom was a property professional and the other an articulate lay advocate, such that they could reasonably have been expected to understand the gravity and implausibility of their allegations [FTT para. 8; UT para. 18].
The Tribunal accepted the landlords’ evidence and submissions that the scale and nature of the allegations made by the appellants—such as relying on events 17 years prior, accusing the respondents of criminal conduct, and making far-fetched claims about events like roof access denial—went beyond ordinary dispute and were pursued in a manner contrary to proper procedural conduct [FTT paras. 6–12; UT paras. 22–24].
The FTT, applying stage two of the Willow Court test, exercised its discretion to make a costs order due to the gravity and volume of unreasonable conduct, including vexatious pursuit of hopeless claims and serious unfounded allegations, holding that this constituted a “bad case” justifying the imposition of a costs award [FTT para. 16; UT para. 29].
The Upper Tribunal upheld the FTT’s discretionary decision to award £70,000 in costs to the landlords, finding no legal error or irrationality, and holding that the decision took proper account of all relevant material and did not exceed the bounds of reasonable discretion under rule 13(1)(b) [UT paras. 30–32].

"In the context of rule 13(1)(b) we consider that the fact that a party acts without legal advice is relevant at the first stage of the inquiry. When considering objectively whether a party has acted reasonably or not, the question is whether a reasonable person in the circumstances in which the party in question found themselves would have acted in the way in which that party acted." In making that assessment it would be wrong, we consider, to assume a greater degree of legal knowledge or familiarity with the procedures of the tribunal and the conduct of proceedings before it, than is in fact possessed by the party whose conduct is under consideration. The behaviour of an unrepresented party with no legal knowledge should be judged by the standards of a reasonable person who does not have legal advice. The crucial question is always whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the party has acted unreasonably in the conduct of the proceedings.”

Coogan v Taheri [2025] UKUT 293 (LC)

The Upper Tribunal has dismissed an appeal against a £70,000 costs order made by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), confirming that unrepresented parties pursuing serious allegations without foundation can face substantial costs sanctions under rule 13(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure Rules 2013.

The Costs Dispute

Steven and Louise Coogan, unrepresented tenants of residential premises in London, brought multiple applications before the FTT against their landlords. Following a two-day hearing where only one minor allegation from their section 22 notice was substantiated – a 17-year-old statutory declaration matter – the landlords applied for costs under rule 13(1)(b).

The FTT made a costs order for £70,000, finding the tenants had acted unreasonably in bringing and conducting their applications. The tenants appealed, challenging both the finding of unreasonable conduct and the tribunal’s exercise of discretion in making the order.

The Costs Arguments

The landlords’ costs application rested on two grounds. First, they argued the tenants had pursued obviously hopeless allegations, noting that beyond the single substantiated matter from 2007, other allegations were unsupported by documents, inherently implausible, legally flawed, or too historical to be relevant to a manager appointment application.

Second, they contended the tenants had pursued serious allegations vexatiously, pointing to repeated unfounded allegations of harassment and fraud culminating in Mr Coogan’s skeleton argument accusing them of Bribery Act offences and comparing their conduct to torture of prisoners of war.

The tenants countered that their position reflected a genuine dispute legitimately pursued over 17 years of poor landlord-tenant relations, emphasising their substantial property improvements and reasonable concerns about contributing 25% towards roof repairs affecting only upper floors.

The Three-Stage Willow Court Test

The Upper Tribunal confirmed the established approach from Willow Court Management Co v Alexander [2016] UKUT 290 (LC), which requires sequential consideration of three questions:

Has the party acted unreasonably?
Should a costs order be made given any unreasonable conduct found?
What should be the terms of any order?

At stage one, unreasonable conduct follows the Ridehalgh v Horsefield definition – conduct that is vexatious and designed to harass rather than advance case resolution. The acid test remains whether the conduct permits a reasonable explanation.

Stage One | Finding of Unreasonable Conduct

The FTT had properly considered the tenants’ unrepresented status but located them within the spectrum of unrepresented litigants, noting Mr Coogan’s property experience and Mrs Coogan’s advocacy skills. The Upper Tribunal rejected the argument that this imposed a higher standard, finding the FTT was correctly assessing what behaviour could reasonably be expected from these particular unrepresented parties.

Crucially, the FTT made a finding of fact that Mr Coogan was “willing to say whatever suited his purpose, regardless of its truthfulness.” The Upper Tribunal confirmed this amounted to a finding of dishonesty, noting that recklessness about truth falls within the classic definition of deceit.

The costs judgment had to be read alongside the substantive judgment and underlying materials, including the skeleton argument containing allegations of deliberate falsehoods, harassment, unlawful eviction, fraud, bribery, and modern slavery. Without a hearing transcript, the tenants could not discharge their burden of proving the FTT’s evaluation was wrong.

Stage Two | Exercise of Discretion

The FTT characterised this as a “bad case” where “obviously bad points were pursued vigorously” and “serious allegations of fraud and bad faith were bandied about vexatiously.” The Upper Tribunal found this assessment was open to the FTT based on the evidence.

The tribunal confirmed that “vexatiously” was used in its ordinary sense – conduct designed to harass rather than advance case resolution. The skeleton argument’s extensive allegations of criminal behaviour and misconduct supported this characterisation.

While a different tribunal might have exercised discretion differently, the FTT had properly directed itself on the law, considered relevant matters, and reached a rational conclusion.

The Appeal Decision

The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal on both grounds. The fact that the landlords subsequently voluntarily appointed the same manager the tenants had proposed did not vindicate the tenants’ approach, particularly given the FTT’s evaluation of how the application had been conducted.

The £70,000 costs order stands as a significant exception to the FTT’s usual no-costs approach, demonstrating that pursuing serious allegations without foundation can trigger substantial costs sanctions even for unrepresented parties.

This decision reinforces that rule 13(1)(b) provides meaningful costs protection for respondents facing vexatious tribunal applications. The three-stage Willow Court framework remains the established approach, with unreasonable conduct assessed objectively against the Ridehalgh standard. While unrepresented status remains relevant at stage one, tribunals can properly differentiate between different types of unrepresented litigants when assessing reasonable expectations of conduct.

Unreasonable conduct and costs in the First-tier Tribunal

Costs Of And Incidental To Proceedings In The Case Of Compulsory Purchase – Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) guidance on costs awards and the scope of proceedings, relevant to tribunal costs jurisdiction principles.

The Power To Strike Out Points Of Dispute In The First-Tier Tribunal – Upper Tribunal decision addressing vexatious conduct and abuse of process in FTT proceedings.

Unreasonable conduct and costs in the First-tier Tribunal – Contains detailed analysis of the Willow Court three-stage test and unreasonable conduct standards for unrepresented parties.