(1) Israel Moskovitz (2) Chavi Moskovitz (3) Solomon Reich (The Trustees of Achiezer Arad) v 75 Worple Road RTM Company Limited
Decision date: 27 October 2010
Neutral citation: [2010] UKUT 393 (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 concerned whether an RTM claim notice which was posted on 16 June 2009 but specified a counter-notice deadline of 16 July 2009 complied with statutory timing requirements. The Upper Tribunal held that, for a notice sent by post, the relevant date "given" is the date of receipt in the ordinary course of post (deemed service), not the posting date, and that the notice therefore failed to comply with the one‑month minimum in s80(6). The statutory saving in s81(1) did not rescue the defect because the incorrect date was not an "inaccuracy in particulars". The LVT decision in favour of the RTM company was set aside and the application dismissed.
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 legislation requires a notice to be "given" and postal service is used, the relevant date is the time of receipt in the ordinary course of post (deemed service), not the date of posting; mandatory timing requirements in RTM claim notices (such as the one‑month minimum) must be met on that basis. An incorrect deadline arising from treating the posting date as the "given" date is not cured by the s81(1) saving unless it is an "inaccuracy in particulars" within the narrow scope of that saving.
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 remarked that carelessness in filing different versions of a notice with the LVT was concerning, though on the papers there was no established intent to mislead. It also indicated that the scope of "inaccuracy" in statutory saving provisions should be construed narrowly so as not to undermine mandatory procedural requirements.