Miroslaw Szymczak v Nafeesa Begum Limited
Decision date: 16 May 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKUT 151 (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 appeal concerns a rent repayment order by Mr Szymczak alleging the property at 55 Roedale Road was an unlicensed HMO on 30 September 2022. The Upper Tribunal refused permission to adduce fresh evidence (tenancy agreements) because the Ladd v Marshall first limb was not met — the documents could with reasonable diligence have been produced at first instance — and found no compelling evidence that a challenged tenancy document was forged. The application to admit new evidence was dismissed and the FTT decision (dismissing the rent repayment application) therefore stands.
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
The tribunal applied the Ladd v Marshall test and held that fresh evidence should be excluded where it could with reasonable diligence have been obtained and produced to the first‑instance tribunal; subsequent production of documents that were available earlier will not allow an appeal to proceed when the first limb is not satisfied.
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 decision observed that converting a Word document to PDF can create metadata explaining apparent contemporaneous creation dates, and that a document withdrawn by a party should generally be disregarded and its production or withdrawal does not itself establish fabrication.