Amlendu Kumar v Nikola Kolev & Ors
[2024] UKUT 255 (LC)
Edouard Cussinel & Anor v Alan Guerin & Ors
25 September 2023
[2023] UKUT 235 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
Landlords let their house to a company, who sublet. A court ordered the landlords to repay rent. A higher court said only the *direct* landlords owe the money, not the original ones. The original landlords won their appeal.
Key Facts
- •Mr and Mrs Cussinel (Appellants) let their property to De Beauvoir & Company Ltd (the Company), who sublet to nine respondents (Tenants).
- •The property became an unlicensed House in Multiple Occupation (HMO).
- •The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) made rent repayment orders against the Cussinels.
- •The Supreme Court in *Rakusen v Jepsen* established that rent repayment orders can only be made against the immediate landlord.
- •The Company was dissolved on 31 January 2017.
- •Tenants sought to admit new evidence of the Company's dissolution to argue a direct landlord-tenant relationship with the Cussinels after the dissolution.
Legal Principles
Rent repayment orders can only be made against the immediate landlord of the tenant.
Rakusen v Jepsen & Ors [2023] UKSC 9
Admission of new evidence on appeal requires showing it couldn't have been obtained with reasonable diligence, would have influenced the result, and is credible (*Ladd v Marshall* test).
Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489; Orchard v Mooney [2023] UKUT 78 (LC); Point West GR Ltd v Bassi [2020] EWCA Civ 795; Terluk v Berezovsky [2011] EWCA Civ 1534
Effect of a company's dissolution on its property is governed by Section 1012, Companies Act 2006; property vests in the Crown, not automatically terminating tenancies.
Section 1012, Companies Act 2006
Section 18(1), Housing Act 1988 protects assured tenancies when the intermediate landlord's tenancy ends; it only applies if the superior tenancy ends.
Section 18(1), Housing Act 1988
Outcomes
The application to admit new evidence was refused.
The evidence of the Company's dissolution would not change the outcome, as it did not terminate the superior tenancy. Section 18, Housing Act 1988, did not create a direct landlord-tenant relationship between the tenants and the Cussinels.
The appeal of Mr and Mrs Cussinel was allowed.
The FTT lacked jurisdiction to make rent repayment orders against the Cussinels as superior landlords under *Rakusen v Jepsen*. The tenants' alternative argument of agency was rejected as it was already considered and dismissed by the FTT.