Ben Maltz acted for the private landlord in the High Court decision of Partridge v Gupta  EWHC 1110 (QB). The appeal focused on the correct interpretation of CPR 83.13(8) and considered what constituted sufficient “notice of the proceedings” within the meaning of this rule. Mr Justice Foskett accepted Ben’s submissions that the decision in Secretary of State for Defence v Nicholas  EWHC 4064 (QB) was distinguishable. The wording of the rule plainly imported a judicial discretion as to whether, on the facts of a particular case, sufficient notice had been given so as to allow any occupant to apply for relief.
6th September 2017