VadeLab
RefusedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Rejects Request for Fee Reimbursement

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided not to require the respondents to pay back the a person fee to the applicant. The judge found that it wasn't fair to ask the respondents to cover the cost given the circumstances of the case.

⚖️ Legal holding

The tribunal has discretion to order a party to reimburse another party's fees but refused to do so in this case.

Topics

application withdrawalreimbursement of fees

Provisions

rule 13(2)rule 22rule 36(2) Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal refused to order the respondents to reimburse the applicant's a person fee.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal refused to order the respondents to reimburse the applicant's application fee, finding it disproportionate and lacking a valid reason.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Refused

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : CAM/22UE/PHI/2025/0674 Property : Pitch 3, Bayside, Sandy Bay, Canvey Island, Essex, [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [COMPANY] Respondents : [redacted] : [NAME] by site owner or occupier for determination of new level of pitch fee

Tribunal Member

: Judge Bernadette MacQueen CONSENT TO WITHDRAWAL

1. Upon the Applicant applying to withdraw the original [NAME] and upon my being satisfied that the Applicant has complied with rule 22 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013 (the Rules), I consent to the withdrawal.

2. Within their [NAME] for consent to withdraw, the Applicant asks the tribunal to determine that the Respondents reimburse the Applicants with the £22 [NAME] fee that the Applicant paid to the tribunal.

3. In order to determine this [NAME], the tribunal asked parties to provide representations to the tribunal by 18 August 2025 as to whether or not the tribunal should make such an order.

4. The tribunal received an email from the Respondents stating that it would be unfair for the Respondents to be asked to pay the [NAME] fee.

2 5. The tribunal has discretion under rule 13(2) Tribunal Procedure (First- tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) 2013 to order a party to reimburse to any other party the whole or any part of any fee paid.

6. Having considered the [NAME], I refuse to make an order that the Respondents reimburse the Applicant’s [NAME] fee.

7. In reaching this decision, I have considered the overriding objective which enables the Tribunal to deal with cases fairly and justly (as set out in Rule 3 of the Rules). I do not find it proportionate to the importance of the case, the complexity of the issues, the anticipated costs and the resources of the parties to order that the Respondents pay the Applicant’s [NAME] fee.

8. The Applicant has not provided the tribunal with any reason for such an order to be made. Further, the Applicant has asked for their [NAME] to be withdrawn because the Respondents have agreed to the revised pitch fee and therefore the Applicant no longer requires the tribunal. On this basis I am not satisfied that an order for reimbursement of the Applicant’s fee should be made.

Name: Judge Bernadette MacQueen

Date: 16 September 2025

3 Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have.

If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal ([NAME]), then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First- tier Tribunal at the [NAME] which has been dealing with the case.

The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the [NAME] within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME].

If the [NAME] is not made within the 28 day time limit, such [NAME] must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit.

The [NAME] for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking.

If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal ([NAME]).

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 10 similar decisions in this collection:

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • The tribunal has the power to order one party to reimburse fees to another.
  • The tribunal considered the overall objective of dealing with cases fairly and justly.
  • It would not be proportionate to the case's importance or complexity to order the respondents to pay the fee.
  • The respondents stated it would be unfair for them to pay the fee.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tribunal refused to order the respondents to reimburse the applicant's application fee.

Who was involved?

The case involved an applicant and respondents, likely a landlord and tenants.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided not to order reimbursement because it deemed it disproportionate and unjust given the context.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Rules 13(2), 22, and 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the lack of proportionality and the absence of a compelling reason for reimbursement.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was against the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation might not be able to get their application fee reimbursed unless there is a strong reason for it.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The representations provided by both parties regarding the fairness of reimbursement mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) within 28 days.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for specific legal matters.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.