St Ermins Property Co v Tingay
Series: Estates Gazette Law Reports ; [2002] 40 EG 174-177(4) | High Court (Administrative Court) ; [2002] EWHC 1673 (Ch)Publication details: 2002Subject(s): Summary: ChD 19 July 2002. The appellant tenant (T) held a lease of a flat owned by the respondent landlord (S). In October 2000, a notice was served on the landlord, under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s 42, claiming a new extended lease of the flat. T's son, acting under power of attorney given in 1998 signed the notice. S served a counternotice, contending that the initial notice was invalid on the ground, inter alia, that the notice was not signed in the correct form. The judge held the notice was invalid. T appealed. "Held", the appeal was dismissed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS66081 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 120261-1001 |
ChD 19 July 2002. The appellant tenant (T) held a lease of a flat owned by the respondent landlord (S). In October 2000, a notice was served on the landlord, under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s 42, claiming a new extended lease of the flat. T's son, acting under power of attorney given in 1998 signed the notice. S served a counternotice, contending that the initial notice was invalid on the ground, inter alia, that the notice was not signed in the correct form. The judge held the notice was invalid. T appealed. "Held", the appeal was dismissed.