Ellen Stokki & Ors v Ahmed Abu Choudhury
Decision date: 9 January 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKUT 11 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This Upper Tribunal appeal challenged the First-tier Tribunal's refusal of jurisdiction to make a rent repayment order because the tenants' application was one day late. The UT held the offence was a continuing one but, applying Moh v Rimal and treating fractions of a day in the landlord's favour, concluded the offence had ceased before the relevant 12‑month period and dismissed the appeal.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
Where an offence is continuing and an element of it ceases part-way through a day, fractions of a day are to be disregarded and the whole day is to be treated in the defendant's favour for the purpose of computing the statutory 12‑month period; accordingly, the continuing offence was not treated as being committed on the day the qualifying element ceased and the FTT correctly concluded it lacked jurisdiction to make a rent repayment order.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judgment indicates that facilitating rent repayment applications is not an overriding consideration when resolving timing uncertainties if doing so would impose criminal liability, and that there is no necessary incongruity between the treatment of continuing offences and once‑and‑for‑all offences because timing difficulties arise only for continuing offences.