[2004] EWCA Civ 1669, 15 December 2004. Considered if the requirement in the Leasehold Reform (Collective Enfranchisement) (Counter-Notices (England) Regulations 2002 para 4 was directory and a failure to comply invalidated a counter-notice. Appeal by P against an order that its counter-notice served under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s21 in response to a collective enfranchisement notice was invalid and that U was entitled to acquire the freehold and leasehold interests in the premises. The notice did not state as required by para 4 whether the premises were in the area of a scheme approved as an estate management scheme. As they were not, the notice should have a negative statement to this effect. The judge found the requirement in the para 4 to be mandatory, invalidating the counter-notice. P contended that the requirement was directory. "Held": appeal allowed. Paragraph 4 does not form part of the requirements of s21(3) but is a requirement in its own right. The effect of non-compliance with a particular statutory requirement depended on the particular statutory scheme. The requirement in para 4 for a negative statement was not mandatory.