The tenants served a notice on the landlord to enfanchise their properties. The landlord’s counter-notice failed to state whether any estate management scheme existed. The tenants said the counter-notice was invalid.
Held: The landlord’s appeal succeeded. The paragraph requiring the statement was a directory requirement, and a failure to comply did not invalidate the notice. It did not form part of the requirements of the section of the statute itself. There could be no possible prejudice to the tenants if the statement was not included.
Judges:
Ward LJ, Arden LJ, Jacob LJ
Citations:
Times 10-Jan-2005
Statutes:
Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 25
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – M25 Group Limited v Tudor and others CA 4-Dec-2003
Tenants served notices under the Act requiring information about the disposal of the freehold. The landlords objected that the notices were invalid in failing to give the tenants’ addresses as required under the Act.
Held: The addresses were . .
Cited – Petch v Gurney (Inspector of Taxes) CA 8-Jun-1994
The thirty day time limit for the forwarding of a case stated is mandatory. The Court of Appeal has no discretion to extend the time limit. Millett LJ analysed the position by reference to the traditional dichotomy of directory or mandatory . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.222534