000			02117cam a2200277 4500
001			ABS67354
008			031222n2003 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u124678
245			_aM25 Group Ltd v John James Tudor and others _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2003
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[2004] 06 EG 146-151(6)
520			_a[2003] EWCA Civ 1760 CA, 4 December 2003. Appellant M acquired the freehold reversion of a block of flats occupied by the respondent tenants T, who had not been given first refusal by the previous owner as required by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 Part I before the sale to M. T served notice on M under s11A of the Act to trigger their right to purchase the property. M queried the validity of the notice because it had failed to state the addresses of T's flats as required by s54(2). T brought proceedings against M for failing to respond to their notice in time for them to exercise their right to purchase. The judge dismissed M's invalid notice claim, stating that M had been made aware of the addresses and the s54 requirement was not mandatory. Appeal on the issue whether that requirement was mandatory or directory. "Held": appeal dismissed. The notice was valid. The substantive provisions here were the right to acquire the freehold. The s11A notice and s54 statement of addresses were secondary or machinery requirements, of which the notice was essential machinery and the s54 requirement merely supportive.
590			_aABS
650			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1987 S54(2)
650			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1987 S12A-D
650			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1987 S11A
650			_aFREEHOLD REVERSION
650			_aFIRST REFUSAL
650			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1987 S3A
650			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1987 S3
650			_aM25 GROUP LTD V TUDOR AND OTHERS
650			_aBELVEDERE COURT MANAGEMENT LTD V FROGMORE DEVELOPMENTS LTD
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES-CASE LAW
856			_uhttps://www3.eurolii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/1760.html _zView judgment at www3.eurolii.org
942			_n0
999			_c73993 _d73993