Discusses recent cases concerning Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s42 notice requirements. In "St Ermin's Property Co v Tingay" (Chd Abs66081), agreeing with an earlier judgment "Viscount Chelsea and another v Hirshorn" (County Court Abs58748) it was decided that the need for a s42 notice to be signed personally by the tenant was inescapable and in this case the notice signed by the tenant's son under a power of attorney was invalid. In "Wellcome Trust Ltd v Bellhurst Ltd" (CA [2002] 32 EG 90) the CA was asked to rule on the validity of a s42 notice served by the respondent (B) which held the relevant underlease on trust for the occupier. The notice had not been served on a particular tenant nor on the intermediate landlord. The tenant it was claimed, although a party to the underlease, was not a third party for the purposes of the Act. CA agreed that the statute did not cover a third party who has no rights and obligations under the law. Further, where Sched 11 para 2 of the 1993 Act applies, the validity of the notice is not affected.