George Marigold & Ors v Robert Wells

Decision date: 3 February 2023

Neutral citation: [2023] UKUT 33 (LC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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 appeal concerned whether Mr Wells had a "reasonable excuse" for being in control of an unlicensed HMO after a council officer allegedly told him no licence was then needed and the council would contact him. The Upper Tribunal held the First-tier Tribunal either failed to consider or to explain whether that excuse persisted for the entire alleged offence period and remitted the rent-repayment application to the FTT for reconsideration.

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

A finding that a defendant had a "reasonable excuse" for continuing offending under section 72 requires the tribunal to assess not only the asserted facts but whether, objectively, those facts amount to a reasonable excuse and for how long that excuse persisted; on appeal the court reviews evaluative tribunal decisions for identifiable flaws (e.g. gaps in logic, failure to address a material factor) or inadequate reasons rather than re-weighing the evidence.

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 Tribunal endorsed guidance (derived from Perrin v HMRC) that the process is: establish the asserted facts, determine which are proven, then objectively assess whether they constitute a reasonable excuse and when it ceased, taking the individual's characteristics into account; it also observed that ignorance of a legal requirement can, depending on circumstances and duration, constitute a reasonable excuse.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML