000			01430cab a2200181 4500
001			ABS40364
008			090401t1989 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u23317
041			_aeng
245			_aGalinski v McHugh
260			_c1989
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(1989) 05 EG 89-94(4)
520			_aCA 5 October 1988. Appeal by tenant (M) from cc decision holding that a notice served by the landlord (G) on the solicitors acting for M, was validly served. M had made a claim for enfranchisement under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 , but failed to complete within the time-scale set down. This gave G the right to serve a notice under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s4 proposing a statutory tenancy . The notice was served on M`s solicitors, rather than on M. The effect of the s4 notice, if good, was to allow M two months to give formal notice of a claim to enfranchise. No claim was made. The point at issue was whether service of the s4 notice on M`s solicitors was good. M contended that the notice had not been properly served, relying on the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 s23 and concluding that a notice on the tenant could not validly be served on his agent. In any case M claimed that he did not receive the notice. CA held, affirming the cc decision that the notice w
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-LEASEHOLD REFORM
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c15592 _d15592