THE TRUSTEES OF THE ISRAEL MOSS CHILDREN’S TRUST v MR NIGEL BANDY

Decision date: 1 June 2015

Neutral citation: [2015] UKUT 276 (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 the First-tier Tribunal gave adequate reasons for quantifying a £600 (50%) deduction from a hypothetical market rent when fixing a fair rent for a ground-floor flat under the Rent Act 1977. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT had described poor condition but failed to explain how it reached the £600 figure or why its figure differed materially from the rent officer’s and the tenant’s quantified evidence. The FTT’s decision was set aside and the matter remitted for redetermination by a differently constituted tribunal.

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: medium

When a tribunal is asked to make or justify a quantified deduction from a hypothetical market rent it must give intelligible reasons enabling the parties to understand how that quantitative adjustment was reached; where the tribunal’s figure departs significantly from parties’ or the rent officer’s quantified figures it must explain the method for arriving at the differing figure.

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 notes indicate obiter that brief supplemental reasons supplied when refusing permission to appeal may be insufficient if they do not explain how a figure was quantified, and that a tribunal which has failed to record full reasons should generally not be asked, on rehearing, to supply fresh explanatory reasons to avoid post hoc rationalisations.

Warning

- The chunk contains duplicated passages and repetitive text. Notes contain duplicated and repetitive passages and may be materially incomplete.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML