Clara Feige Vila Moreira & Ors v Nicholas and Varuni Morrison

Decision date: 21 September 2023

Neutral citation: [2023] UKUT 233 (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 a rent repayment order (RRO) for an unlicensed HMO should be calculated by reference to the whole rent (because tenants were jointly and severally liable) or limited to the rent each applicant actually paid. The Upper Tribunal upheld the First-tier Tribunal’s approach that an RRO is a repayment confined to amounts the applicant actually paid during the relevant period and rejected the argument that joint and several liability entitled each tenant to recover the whole rent. The appeal was dismissed; permission to seek appeal to the Court of Appeal on a point of law remains available.

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’s ratio is that a statutory rent repayment order is properly characterised as a “repayment” and therefore is limited to rent actually paid by the applicant in the relevant period; it cannot be based on hypothetical or unpaid liabilities owed jointly and severally by co-tenants and so cannot exceed the amounts the applicant personally paid.

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 observes (obiter) that comparing RROs to other statutory penalties (such as deposit-penalty provisions) is not determinative because penalties and repayments operate differently, and that permitting each tenant to recover the whole rent could produce disproportionate, multiplied liabilities against a single landlord.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML