Partridge v Gupta

Partridge v Gupta

Sufficient notice under CPR 83.13(8)(a) is not limited to formal service of the application for permission; it is satisfied if the occupant has received notice of the proceedings and impending eviction, enabling them to apply for relief. The letter of 23 March 2016 constituted sufficient notice, and the appellant's application to set aside was properly dismissed.

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 / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal to Set Aside Permission for Writ of Possession
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Possession Orders, Notice Requirements Under CPR 83.13, High Court Enforcement, Assured Shorthold Tenancy, Transfer of Proceedings
Civil Procedure Landlord and Tenant Enforcement of Possession Orders Notice Requirements Under CPR 83.13 High Court Enforcement Assured Shorthold Tenancy Transfer of 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 5 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 / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal to Set Aside Permission for Writ of Possession

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What constitutes sufficient notice under CPR 83.13(8)(a) for permission to issue a writ of possession
  2. 2 Whether actual notice of the application for permission is required
  3. 3 Interpretation of 'notice of the proceedings' in possession enforcement

Ratio Decidendi

Sufficient notice under CPR 83.13(8)(a) is not limited to formal service of the application for permission; it is satisfied if the occupant has received notice of the proceedings and impending eviction, enabling them to apply for relief. The letter of 23 March 2016 constituted sufficient notice, and the appellant's application to set aside was properly dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The letter of 23 March 2016 constituted sufficient notice under CPR 83.13(8)(a)
  • Appellant's application to set aside the order of Master McCloud dismissed