Pocket Renting Ltd v Investalet Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 818 (Ch) (10 February 2026)

Pocket Renting Ltd v Investalet Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 818 (Ch) (10 February 2026)

The claimant is entitled to possession as the first defendant's tenancy was validly terminated, subletting was contractually prohibited and done without consent, and no lawful tenancies bind the claimant. Service on 'persons unknown' was valid and sufficient. No substantive defence was advanced by either defendant.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 818 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Pocket Renting Limited (in administration); First Defendant: Investalet Limited & Ors; Second Defendant: Persons Unknown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Possession and Money Judgment Claim / First Hearing of Possession Claim Under CPR Part 55
Outcome
Possession order granted in favour of the claimant against all defendants; money judgment for arrears and mesne profits granted against the first defendant.
Legal Topics
Possession Proceedings, Subletting Without Consent, Service on Persons Unknown, Summary Disposal, Mesne Profits
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Possession Proceedings Subletting Without Consent Service on Persons Unknown Summary Disposal Mesne Profits

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pocket Renting Limited (in administration)

Claimant

Investalet Limited & Ors

First Defendant

Persons Unknown

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Possession and Money Judgment Claim / First Hearing of Possession Claim Under CPR Part 55

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to possession of the five properties
  2. 2 Whether service on 'persons unknown' is procedurally valid
  3. 3 Whether sub-tenancies granted without consent are lawful

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant is entitled to possession as the first defendant's tenancy was validly terminated, subletting was contractually prohibited and done without consent, and no lawful tenancies bind the claimant. Service on 'persons unknown' was valid and sufficient. No substantive defence was advanced by either defendant.

Court Disposition

Possession order granted in favour of the claimant against all defendants; money judgment for arrears and mesne profits granted against the first defendant.

Orders

  • Order for possession of 52 Chippenham Road, 58A Chippenham Road, 64A Chippenham Road, Flat 83 Carlton Mansion, and Flat 85 Elgin Mansion in favour of the claimant against all defendants.
  • Money judgment against the first defendant for £117,000 plus interest for arrears and £222,970 for mesne profits.