Glen International Ltd v Triplerose Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 388 (23 March 2007)

Glen International Ltd v Triplerose Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 388 (23 March 2007)

The letter of 18 October 2004 did not constitute a valid section 48 notice as it only related to correspondence about specific matters (dilapidations and insurance) and did not clearly notify the tenant of a new address for service of statutory notices. Furthermore, the tenant's solicitors did not have authority to accept a section 48 notice. Therefore, the address last furnished under section 47 remained valid for service, and the tenant's notice was properly served.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Civ 388
Parties
Claimant / Respondent: Glen International Limited; Defendant / Appellant: Triplerose Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Service of Notices, Leasehold Reform, Authority of Agents, Section 48 Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, Section 42 Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Civil Procedure Service of Notices Leasehold Reform Authority of Agents Section 48 Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 Section 42 Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Glen International Limited

Claimant / Respondent

Triplerose Limited

Defendant / Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the landlord furnished a valid notice under section 48 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987
  2. 2 Whether service of notice to the landlord's agent constituted proper service under the relevant statutory provisions
  3. 3 Whether the tenant's solicitors had authority to accept a section 48 notice

Ratio Decidendi

The letter of 18 October 2004 did not constitute a valid section 48 notice as it only related to correspondence about specific matters (dilapidations and insurance) and did not clearly notify the tenant of a new address for service of statutory notices. Furthermore, the tenant's solicitors did not have authority to accept a section 48 notice. Therefore, the address last furnished under section 47 remained valid for service, and the tenant's notice was properly served.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; judgment and order of the County Court affirmed.