Michael Osagie v Kingsley Onwuka & Anor
[2024] UKUT 293 (LC)
Kwasi Date-Bah & Anor v Rachel Radice
4 December 2023
[2023] UKUT 289 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
Landlords were unfairly ordered to repay rent because they only had two days' notice of a court hearing. The higher court overturned the decision, saying the landlords deserved a fair chance to present their case.
Key Facts
- •Mr and Mrs Date-Bah (landlords) were served with proceedings for a rent repayment order via email using an address from an expired tenancy agreement.
- •They received only two days' notice of the hearing and requested an adjournment due to lack of preparation time, illness, and childcare issues.
- •The FTT refused the adjournment, and the landlords were subsequently ordered to repay £9,750.
- •The landlords appealed the FTT's refusal to adjourn, arguing procedural unfairness.
- •The landlords were found to have managed an unlicensed property, an offence under section 95(1) of the Housing Act 2004.
Legal Principles
Service of documents can be made via email if the party has provided that email address, even if it is from an expired agreement.
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, Rule 16
The Upper Tribunal will only interfere with a case management decision (like an adjournment) if it falls outside the generous margin of discretion afforded to the FTT.
Case law precedent (not explicitly stated, implied by the judge's consideration of the FTT's decision)
The FTT may proceed with a hearing in a party's absence if they were notified and it is in the interests of justice.
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, Rule 34
The Tribunal may set aside a decision if there was a procedural irregularity, which includes failure to receive documents at an appropriate time.
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, Rule 51
Fresh evidence is only admissible on appeal if it meets the criteria in Ladd v Marshall.
Ladd v Marshall [1954] EWCA Civ 1
In rent repayment order cases, the seriousness of the offence and guidance from cases like Acheampong v Roman should be considered when determining the quantum of the order.
Acheampong v Roman and others [2022] UKUT 239 (LC)
Outcomes
The FTT's decision was set aside.
The FTT's refusal to adjourn was procedurally unfair due to insufficient notice, preventing adequate preparation and evidence submission. The consequences of this were serious, impacting the landlords' ability to present their case.
The matter was remitted to the FTT for a fresh determination by a different panel.
To ensure a fair hearing with proper consideration of evidence and procedural fairness.