Edouard Cussinel & Anor v Alan Guerin & Ors
Decision date: 25 September 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKUT 235 (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
The appeal concerned rent repayment orders made against Mr and Mrs Cussinel after an FTT found they controlled an unlicensed HMO; tenants sought to rely on Companies House evidence that the intermediate tenant company was dissolved, arguing s.18(1) Housing Act 1988 thereby converted their subtenancies into direct tenancies of the Cussinels. The Tribunal declined to admit the late Companies House evidence because, even if credible, it would not have altered the legal outcome, and held that on dissolution the company's tenancies vest as bona vacantia in the Crown so the superior tenancy did not end for s.18(1) purposes. The Tribunal indicated it would allow the landlords' appeal and set aside the FTT's orders unless tenants advanced a realistic challenge within 14 days.
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 a private company is dissolved its property, including leasehold tenancies, vests as bona vacantia in the Crown; that vesting does not constitute an end of the superior tenancy for the purposes of s.18(1) Housing Act 1988, so s.18(1) cannot convert subtenancies into direct tenancies of the superior landlord in those circumstances. Additionally, appellate admission of new evidence requires that the evidence would probably have had an important influence on the result; credible evidence that makes no legal difference may be excluded.
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 noted, by way of guidance, that where changes in authority (eg Rakusen) alter the legal landscape, parties may be afforded some latitude to advance new arguments on appeal, but late factual challenges remain subject to usual constraints. It also observed that tribunal practice on admitting fresh evidence on appeal may appropriately take into account factors akin to the Ladd v Marshall/CPR test, despite CPR not applying directly.