The Respondent was instructed by Clients C, D, E and F in September 2021 in connection with the management of leasehold interests at the Manor, a property comprising six flats. The allegation concerned a letter dated 24 September 2021 sent by the Respondent to the leaseholders of Flat 4 (“the Letter”), which the Applicant alleged was misleading and intended to induce them to enter into a deed of variation under which rights over land would be forfeited.

The Respondent denied the allegation, maintaining that the lease plan was defective and that her letter was intended to initiate rectification through legal representation. She accepted that, with hindsight, a fuller explanation of the enclosed plan would have been appropriate.

At the outset of the hearing, the Applicant clarified that the case was advanced on the basis that, although the lease purported to grant rights over the paddock, those rights were intended but not legally effective. The Applicant relied on the letter of 24 September 2021, an attendance note dated 20 September 2021, and two emails sent by the Respondent, which were said to demonstrate her intention to persuade the leaseholders to agree to a deed of variation

At the close of the Applicant’s case, the Tribunal upheld an application of no case to answer under the first limb of Galbraith , finding that the allegation was fatally flawed and misconceived because there were no enforceable rights in respect of which the leaseholders could have been misled. The factual allegation was dismissed and therefore the Tribunal had no need to consider the alleged breaches of the Principles and the Code.

The Tribunal subsequently granted the Respondent’s application for costs in principle, determining that there was good reason to depart from the starting point under the principles in Baxendale-Walker and Hon-Ying Amie Tsang [2024] EWHC 1150 given that the prosecution was found to have been unreasonable.

After hearing submissions on quantum, the Tribunal assessed the Respondent’s costs in the sum of £159,242. This figure reflected reductions applied to the brief fee and the first fixed fee, the disallowance of the costs hearing fee, and the allowance of the second fixed fee in full.