Lumsden v Charles [2025] EWCC 7 (12 March 2025)

Lumsden v Charles [2025] EWCC 7 (12 March 2025)

Service at a section 48 address is not valid after the end of the landlord-tenant relationship; the lower court did not err in refusing relief from sanction given the seriousness of the breach, lack of good reason, and procedural history; the claim was never validly served and is void.

Citation
[2025] EWCC 7
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Nikki Lumsden; Defendant/respondent: Rachel Charles
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal (county Court) / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Service of Claim Form, Tenancy Deposit Protection, Address for Service, CPR Compliance
Civil Procedure Landlord and Tenant Relief From Sanctions Service of Claim Form Tenancy Deposit Protection Address for Service CPR Compliance

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nikki Lumsden

Claimant/appellant

Rachel Charles

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (county Court) / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of the claim form at an address given under section 48 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 is valid after the end of a tenancy
  2. 2 Whether the lower court erred in refusing relief from sanction for failure to file evidence with the Part 8 claim form
  3. 3 Whether procedural defects regarding service on co-defendants and addresses for service were properly considered

Ratio Decidendi

Service at a section 48 address is not valid after the end of the landlord-tenant relationship; the lower court did not err in refusing relief from sanction given the seriousness of the breach, lack of good reason, and procedural history; the claim was never validly served and is void.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judge's order affirmed
  • Claim remains struck out