B Osborn & Co Ltd v Dior [2003] EWCA Civ 281 (22 January 2003)

B Osborn & Co Ltd v Dior [2003] EWCA Civ 281 (22 January 2003)

Omission or misstatement of the landlord's particulars in Form 7 does not invalidate a section 20 notice where the agent's details are provided and the form otherwise substantially complies with statutory requirements; the statutory purpose is to inform the tenant of the nature of the tenancy, not necessarily to identify the landlord.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 281
Parties
Claimant/respondent: B Osborn & Co Limited; Defendant/appellant: Simone Dior; Claimant/respondent: Marito Holdings SA; 1st Defendant/appellant: Borham Deneche; 2nd Defendant: L Lundborg
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 January 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (housing/landlord Tenant) / Appeal From County Court Orders for Possession
Outcome
Appeals dismissed (majority in Marito Holdings v Deneche)
Legal Topics
Assured Shorthold Tenancies, Section 20 Notice, Validity of Prescribed Forms, Statutory Interpretation, Possession Proceedings
Landlord and Tenant Housing Law Civil Procedure Assured Shorthold Tenancies Section 20 Notice Validity of Prescribed Forms Statutory Interpretation Possession Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B Osborn & Co Limited

Claimant/respondent

Simone Dior

Defendant/appellant

Marito Holdings SA

Claimant/respondent

Borham Deneche

1st Defendant/appellant

L Lundborg

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (housing/landlord Tenant) / Appeal From County Court Orders for Possession

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether omission or misstatement of landlord's particulars in Form 7 (section 20 notice) invalidates the notice and prevents creation of an assured shorthold tenancy
  2. 2 Whether the notice was 'substantially to the same effect' as the prescribed form under the Housing Act 1988

Ratio Decidendi

Omission or misstatement of the landlord's particulars in Form 7 does not invalidate a section 20 notice where the agent's details are provided and the form otherwise substantially complies with statutory requirements; the statutory purpose is to inform the tenant of the nature of the tenancy, not necessarily to identify the landlord.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed (majority in Marito Holdings v Deneche)

Orders

  • Osborn v Dior: Appeal dismissed; stay lifted; possession ordered in 28 days; costs orders as specified; permission to appeal refused.
  • Marito Holdings v Deneche: Appeal dismissed by majority; possession stayed for 15 days with liberty to apply for further stay; permission to appeal refused; balance of appeal adjourned for ADR.