Kwasi Date-Bah & Anor v Rachel Radice

Decision date: 4 December 2023

Neutral citation: [2023] UKUT 289 (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 a rent repayment order made by the First-tier Tribunal against Mr and Mrs Date-Bah for managing an unlicensed selective-licence property. The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal because the FTT refused an adjournment of a hearing on two working days' notice, which deprived the landlords of a fair opportunity to prepare and give evidence, and set aside the decision on quantum, remitting the matter for re-determination by a different panel.

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 tribunal must carefully consider the impact of refusing an adjournment where contested factual issues (including those affecting liability or penalty/quantum) may be decided without a party's evidence; proceeding without adequate reasons where a party genuinely lacked timely notice and could not present evidence can render the hearing procedurally unfair.

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 service by an email address specified in a tenancy agreement can be appropriate where the address remains live and has not been disclaimed, and expresses caution about scepticism toward claimed short-notice medical appointments or childcare difficulties (for example, expecting attendance at a remote hearing with a young child may be unrealistic).