Partridge v Gupta [2017] EWHC 2110 (QB) (15 August 2017)

Partridge v Gupta [2017] EWHC 2110 (QB) (15 August 2017)

Notice of the proceedings under CPR 83.13(8)(a) does not require formal service of the application for permission to issue a writ of possession; it is sufficient if the occupant has received notice that enables them to apply for relief. In this case, the letter of 23 March 2016, together with the appellant's participation in the proceedings, constituted sufficient notice.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2110 (QB)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Michael Partridge; Respondent/claimant: Rakesh Gupta; Interested Party: The Burlington Group
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court (queen's Bench Division) Judgment on Appeal From Master Yoxall
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Possession Orders, Notice Requirements, CPR 83.13 Interpretation
Civil Procedure Landlord and Tenant Enforcement of Possession Orders Notice Requirements CPR 83.13 Interpretation

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Partridge

Appellant/defendant

Rakesh Gupta

Respondent/claimant

The Burlington Group

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court (queen's Bench Division) Judgment on Appeal From Master Yoxall

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What constitutes sufficient 'notice of the proceedings' under CPR 83.13(8)(a) for the purposes of granting permission to issue a writ of possession?
  2. 2 Is formal notice of the application for permission to issue a writ of possession required to be served on the occupant(s)?

Ratio Decidendi

Notice of the proceedings under CPR 83.13(8)(a) does not require formal service of the application for permission to issue a writ of possession; it is sufficient if the occupant has received notice that enables them to apply for relief. In this case, the letter of 23 March 2016, together with the appellant's participation in the proceedings, constituted sufficient notice.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The order of Master Yoxall is upheld; the application to set aside the order of Master McCloud is dismissed.