Wellcome Trust Ltd v Bellhurst Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 790 (16 May 2002)

Wellcome Trust Ltd v Bellhurst Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 790 (16 May 2002)

The statutory scheme distinguishes between failures to serve notice on landlords where information has been requisitioned under section 41 (which results in invalidity) and other failures (which result only in liability for loss). Since no section 41 notice was served, the tenant's failure to serve notice on Charlgrove did not invalidate the notice. Mr Edgson was not a 'third party' within the meaning of the Act as he had no ongoing interest or obligations. Therefore, the tenant's notice was valid.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 790
Parties
Claimant/appellant: The Wellcome Trust Limited; Defendant/respondent: Bellhurst Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Leasehold Reform, Notices Under Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, Validity of Tenant's Notice, Service of Notice to Other Landlords and Third Parties
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Leasehold Reform Notices Under Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 Validity of Tenant's Notice Service of Notice to Other Landlords and Third Parties

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 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Wellcome Trust Limited

Claimant/appellant

Bellhurst Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to serve notice on an 'other landlord' (Charlgrove) invalidates the tenant's notice under section 42 of the 1993 Act
  2. 2 Whether failure to serve notice on a 'third party' (Mr Edgson) invalidates the tenant's notice under section 42 of the 1993 Act

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory scheme distinguishes between failures to serve notice on landlords where information has been requisitioned under section 41 (which results in invalidity) and other failures (which result only in liability for loss). Since no section 41 notice was served, the tenant's failure to serve notice on Charlgrove did not invalidate the notice. Mr Edgson was not a 'third party' within the meaning of the Act as he had no ongoing interest or obligations. Therefore, the tenant's notice was valid.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs summarily assessed in the sum of £6,259.22