![[2024] UKUT 335 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png){kind=logo}
The appeal
The appeal
The grounds of appeal
The appellant freeholder appeals the finding that the failure to give the notice of invitation to participate to Ms O’Connor did not invalidate the claim notice. There is a cross- appeal by the respondent against the finding that the tenant of flat 17 was a qualifying tenant.
Accordingly the Tribunal has to decide:
Was Ms O’Connor a qualifying tenant (and therefore a person on whom a notice of intention to participate was required to be served)?
If she was, did failure to serve a notice of invitation to participate on her invalidate the claim notice?
- Heading
- Introduction
- The legal background
- Policy and case law about the right to manage
- The registration of leases
- The factual background to the appeal
- The decision of the FTT
- The appeal
- More about the factual basis of the appeal
- Was Ms O’Connor a qualifying tenant? The appellant’s arguments
- The respondent’s arguments
- Further submissions about A1 (Sunderland)
- Discussion
- If Ms O’Connor was a qualifying tenant, did failure to serve a notice of invitation to participate invalidate the claim notice?
- The evolution of the law relating to procedural defects in the process of acquiring the right to manage
- The Supreme Court’s decision in A1 (Sunderland)
- The arguments about the second issue in the appeal
- The written representations after A1 (Sunderland)
- Discussion and conclusion about the second issue in the appeal
- Conclusion on the second issue in the appeal
- Conclusions