B Osborn & Co Ltd v Dior

B Osborn & Co Ltd v Dior

The omission or misstatement of the landlord's particulars in Form 7 does not invalidate a section 20 notice where the agent has signed and provided their own particulars, as the notice remains 'substantially to the same effect' and fulfills the statutory purpose of informing the tenant of the assured shorthold nature of the tenancy.

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 / Judgment on Appeal From County Court Orders for Possession
Outcome
Appeals dismissed (majority in Marito Holdings v Deneche)
Legal Topics
Assured Shorthold Tenancy, Section 20 Notice, Validity of Prescribed Forms, Possession Proceedings
Landlord and Tenant Law Housing Law Assured Shorthold Tenancy Section 20 Notice Validity of Prescribed Forms 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 17 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 / Judgment on Appeal From County Court Orders for Possession

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether omission or misstatement of landlord's particulars in Form 7 invalidates a section 20 Housing Act 1988 notice
  2. 2 Whether the notice was 'substantially to the same effect' as prescribed by statute

Ratio Decidendi

The omission or misstatement of the landlord's particulars in Form 7 does not invalidate a section 20 notice where the agent has signed and provided their own particulars, as the notice remains 'substantially to the same effect' and fulfills the statutory purpose of informing the tenant of the assured shorthold nature of the tenancy.

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 to House of Lords refused.
  • Marito Holdings v Deneche: Appeal dismissed by majority; possession stayed for 15 days with liberty to apply for further stay; permission to appeal to House of Lords refused; balance of appeal adjourned for ADR.