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

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

The letter of 23 March 2016, together with the appellant's full participation in the possession proceedings, constituted sufficient 'notice of the proceedings' for the purposes of CPR 83.13(8)(a). The rule does not require formal service of the application for permission to issue a writ of possession, provided the occupant has sufficient information to apply for relief. Master Yoxall was correct to dismiss the application to set aside the order granting permission to issue the writ.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2110
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's Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Possession Orders, Notice Requirements Under CPR 83.13, High Court Writs of Possession, Practice and Procedure for Eviction
Civil Procedure Landlord and Tenant Enforcement of Possession Orders Notice Requirements Under CPR 83.13 High Court Writs of Possession Practice and Procedure for Eviction

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 10 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's Decision

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

The letter of 23 March 2016, together with the appellant's full participation in the possession proceedings, constituted sufficient 'notice of the proceedings' for the purposes of CPR 83.13(8)(a). The rule does not require formal service of the application for permission to issue a writ of possession, provided the occupant has sufficient information to apply for relief. Master Yoxall was correct to dismiss the application to set aside the order granting permission to issue the writ.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.