Katarzyna Kaszowska & Ors v Dominic White

Decision date: 14 January 2022

Neutral citation: [2022] UKUT 11 (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) under Chapter 4 of Part 2 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 can be made against a company director who was not the landlord, and whether the director had committed a relevant housing offence. The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) had held it lacked jurisdiction to make an RRO against Mr White and found in any event that he had a reasonable excuse; the Upper Tribunal upheld the FTT's conclusion that Chapter 4 jurisdiction is limited to landlords and dismissed the appeal, so it did not decide the reasonable-excuse finding.

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 statutory wording of Chapter 4 confines the power to make RROs to persons who are landlords and who have committed offences to which the Chapter applies; where Parliament has intended liability to extend beyond landlords (for example to company directors) it has done so explicitly, and the Chapter does not do so.

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 expressed that policy arguments for extending RROs to directors (such as targeting rogue landlords who use insolvent companies) do not override the statute's natural meaning, and noted that the concept of "repay" in the RRO context naturally envisages repayment by the landlord who received the rent rather than by a third party.

Warning

Chunk contains substantial repetition of the same passages. Notes contain substantial repetition and may be incomplete.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML