![CA-2024-002828 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1016](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_Sjvxvlx.png){kind=logo}
This conclusion was in her view consistent with the analysis of the Deputy President in the 7 Sunny Gardens case (see [40] above) and also with the reasoning of the Supreme Court in A1 Properties, whe
This conclusion was in her view consistent with the analysis of the Deputy President in the 7 Sunny Gardens case (see [40] above) and also with the reasoning of the Supreme Court in A1 Properties, where it said at [69] that
“There will ordinarily be no difficulty in finding or identifying qualifying tenants”.
- Heading
- Sir Launcelot Henderson
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal
- The statutory framework
- The facts
- Issue 1: was Ms O’Connor a qualifying tenant?
- This conclusion was in her view consistent with the analysis of the Deputy President in the 7 Sunny Gardens case (see [40] above) and also with the reasoning of the Supreme Court in A1 Properties, whe
- As the Judge put it at [61]
- Discussion of Issue 1
- Issue 2: Did the failure to give a participation notice to Ms O’Connor invalidate the claim notice served by the respondent on 21 January 2022?
- The decision of the UT on Issue 2
- Conclusions