Stevan Gorgievski v Carl Griffiths & Ors
Decision date: 4 June 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKUT 161 (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 FTT rent repayment orders totalling £33,668 against a landlord for an unlicensed HMO. The Upper Tribunal held the tenants' application was in time (the 12‑month period includes the day of application and an electronically sent application is made when sent, on the facts) but set aside the FTT decision because it failed to make factual findings necessary to determine the landlord's statutory reasonable‑excuse defence and gave inadequate treatment to alleged harassment, quantum and fee reimbursement; the matter was remitted to a differently constituted 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
The tribunal confirmed that for the section 41(2) limitation provision a period "ending with the day on which the application is made" includes that whole day, and that an application sent electronically may be treated as made when sent (absent contrary evidence about receipt). The FTT must make and record the factual findings needed to decide whether an objectively reasonable excuse exists before rejecting that defence.
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 suggested (non‑bindingly) that expiry of a criminal or magistrates' limitation period does not preclude a later civil rent‑repayment order, and outlined a helpful approach a tribunal may take when considering reasonable excuse: identify the facts relied on, determine which are proven, and assess whether those proven facts amount to an objectively reasonable excuse.