# Do I have to pay my landlord's legal fees if my case was already in court before the new rules started?

- Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
- Practice area: Tenancy Law
- Published: 2026-10-25
- Last updated: 2026-10-25
- Canonical: https://lawasked.com/uk/tenancy-law/i-pay-my-landlord-s-legal-fees-if

## Question

I am currently living in a rented flat in England and I am facing a really stressful situation with my landlord. Back in November 2015, my landlord started legal proceedings against me to get possession of the property because they claimed they wanted to sell it. We have been stuck in this legal battle for several months now, and the case has been ongoing through the local court system. I have tried to negotiate a settlement to move out quietly, but we couldn't reach an agreement before the recent changes in the law regarding tenant protections and costs came into effect. Now that the court is finally making a decision on whether I have to leave or if the landlord's possession claim is valid, the landlord's solicitor is demanding that I cover all their legal costs and court fees. I am worried because the case actually started well before these new Deregulation rules were officially passed. If the judge decides that the landlord is allowed to take the property back, am I still legally required to pay for their solicitor's bill, or do the new rules protect me from paying those specific costs since my case was already in the middle of the court process?

## Summary

It depends on the court's decision. If the judge decides to grant the landlord possession because of specific rules related to the Deregulation Act, the court must not order you to pay the landlord's legal costs that are linked to those proceedings.

## Analysis

Because your legal battle started in November 2015, it began before the 'commencement date' of the Deregulation Act 2015 [1]. Under the law, there are special rules for cases that were already in the middle of the court process when the new rules arrived.

Specifically, if your case is a possession claim under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988, the law looks at whether the proceedings were 'instituted before the commencement date but have not been settled or finally determined before that date' [1]. 'Instituted' means the legal process was officially started, and 'finally determined' means a court has made a final decision that cannot be appealed [1].

If the court decides to grant the landlord possession because of certain technical rules (specifically sections 215A or 215B), then a protection kicks in. The law states: "the court must not order the tenant or any relevant person... to pay the landlord's costs, to the extent that the court reasonably considers those costs are attributable to the proceedings" [1]. This means if the judge finds the landlord is entitled to the property based on those specific sections, they cannot force you to pay the solicitor's bills that relate to this specific legal fight.

However, this protection is not a blanket shield for all costs. It only applies if the court makes a specific decision regarding the possession order under those sections. If the landlord wins for a different reason not covered by these transitional rules, you might still be liable for costs. Additionally, the protection only covers costs that the judge 'reasonably considers' are linked to these specific proceedings [1].

## Statutory citations

- Housing Act 2004, Section 215C - Sections 215A and 215B: transitional provisions [in force] (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/34/section/215C)
  > proceedings under either of those sections in respect of a tenancy which have been finally determined before the commencement date... proceedings for possession under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 in respect of the tenancy have been instituted before the commencement date but have not been settled or finally determined before that date
- Housing Act 2004, Section 215C - Sections 215A and 215B: transitional provisions [in force] (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/34/section/215C)
  > the court must not order the tenant or any relevant person... to pay the landlord's costs, to the extent that the court reasonably considers those costs are attributable to the proceedings

---
General information only, not legal advice. See https://lawasked.com/disclaimer