[2007] EWCA Civ 388, 23 March 2007. The landlord (T) appealed against a decision that the tenant (G) had properly served a notice under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1987 s42; and against an order granting G a new lease of the property. G believed that T had supplied no address for service under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 s48 and so served their notice to the address contained in T's demands for rent. In the absence of any counter-notice, the judge had ordered a new lease granted to G. During negotiations with G's solicitors regarding dilapidations, T's agent had supplied a separate address for correspondence. The issue was whether G ought to have served the notice for a new lease at that address or whether the address used amounted to proper service. "Held": T's agent had not supplied notice pursuant to the 1987 Act and G's solicitors did not have authority to receive the address as a proper service. They were authorised only to correspond regarding dilapidations. Appeal dismissed.