- within Law Department Performance, Corporate/Commercial Law and Criminal Law topic(s)
The decision by the Court of Appeal in Baqir Al-Chaalan & Anor v Abri Group Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 946 has provided clarity on whether a landlord has validly served a residential tenant with notice of legal proceedings seeking vacant possession. In this blog, Katy Corteel discusses the Court of Appeal’s judgment.
The facts in Baqir Al-Chaalan & Anor v Abri Group Ltd
The Property was let under an assured tenancy to Mr Baqir Al-Chaalan (“the tenant”) by Octavia Housing (“the landlord”). At the time the tenancy was granted in 2004, it appeared that the tenant was living at the Property with his wife, mother and daughter. In June 2020, the tenant visited his brother in Iraq. The landlord was subsequently advised that the tenant had passed away but was later informed in 2022 by the tenant’s daughter that the tenant was in fact alive, but unable to travel back to the UK. Following this, the landlord served a notice to quit on the tenant at the Property to terminate the tenancy.
Possession proceedings were then issued by the landlord in April 2023 on the basis that the tenant (a) was no longer occupying the Property as his “only or principal home” or he had sublet the whole of the Property or (b) in the alternative, he had died. The claim form seeking possession was sent to the tenant at the Property. The landlord’s claim for vacant possession of the Property was defended, first by someone purporting to be the tenant’s “litigation friend”, and later by the tenant on the basis that the tenant was still alive and that the Property had not been sublet. The defence listed the Property address for service.
At the possession hearing in July 2023, the judge made a possession order against the tenant which required the tenant to move out and return the Property’s keys to the landlord. The tenant subsequently appealed this order on the basis that the proceedings (i.e. documents detailing the court claim) had never been validly served (i.e. received in accordance with the procedural rules) and he had not known about the hearing where possession was ordered. The tenant’s appeal was dismissed by the High Court on the basis that he had been properly served, amongst other reasons, so the tenant appealed again to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Baqir Al-Chaalan & Anor v Abri Group Ltd
The Court of Appeal agreed with the earlier courts’ decisions that the proceedings had been validly served on the tenant and the possession order against the tenant was valid. The Court of Appeal made clear that when determining whether legal proceedings have been validly served on the other party, the wording of the tenancy agreement read in the context of the whole agreement is key.
1. Most “natural place” for service given the nature of the tenancy as an assured tenancy
The Court stated that as this was an “assured tenancy”, the most natural place for service of any notices related to the tenancy was the Property address. This is because assured tenants must live at the Property as their only or principal home and not part with possession of it. In contrast, a landlord may operate from several addresses, hence the requirement under section 48 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 for landlords to provide tenants with an address for the service of notices.
2. No need for an explicit reference in the service provisions of the tenancy agreement to notices related to “legal proceedings”
The Court also rejected the tenant’s argument that the tenancy agreement must explicitly refer to the service of “legal proceedings” (not just the service of “legal notices”) in order to entitle the landlord to send correspondence related to the court claim to the Property address.
As is advisable in all tenancy agreements, this agreement had a service clause (Clause 1(5) of the General Terms of the Tenancy Agreement) which stated at Clause 1(5)(i) the landlord’s address for the sending of “legal notices, and any other communication arising from the Agreement”. At Clause 1(5)(ii), the Agreement stated the tenant’s address for “any legal notice, or any other communication arising from the Agreement” was the Property address.
The only difference between Clause 1(5)(i) and (ii) was that (i) stated that the term was “in accordance with section 48 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987”. As stated above, section 48 requires landlords to provide their tenants with an address for the service of “notices (including notices in proceedings)”. The Court of Appeal determined that the use of brackets in section 48 simply defines “notices” and rejected the tenant’s argument that such a reference to section 48 imports the explicit wording of “proceedings” into Clause 1(5)(i) which was fatally absent from (ii).
The Court of Appeal accepted that “legal notice”, as stated in the tenancy agreement under Clauses 1(5)(i) and (ii), was clearly meant in broad terms, and was thus sufficient to cover notices related to the service of “legal proceedings”, such as the claim form.
3. The tenancy agreement as a whole
The Court of Appeal also considered the agreement as a whole and determined that Clause 1(5)(i) and (ii) were intended to operate as “mirror provisions”. This was reasoned on the basis that the clauses included the same wording, both referring to “legal notices” and “any other communication arising from the Agreement”. It was not disputed that Clause 1(5)(i) covered the service of proceedings and the Court determined that it would not be “proper” to conclude that the same wording in Clause 1(5)(ii) could mean something different.
4. Consideration of the procedural rules
The Court of Appeal also considered the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), which set out the procedure to be followed during civil court proceedings, such as possession claims.
CPR r6.8(b) explicitly states that in a claim by a tenant against a landlord, the claim form may be sent to an address given by the landlord under section 48 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. The tenant argued that such a provision would be obsolete if reference in a tenancy agreement to “legal notices” was sufficient to cover legal proceedings.
The Court of Appeal rejected this argument as CPR r6.8(b) was only “permissive and additional to CPR r6.8(a)” (CPR r6.8(a) provides for the mirror provision, i.e. the landlord can serve a claim form on the tenant at their home address or UK place of business which has been provided by the tenant). The Court of Appeal emphasised that the point of CPR r6.8(b) is to enable service on the landlord at the address they provided for service under section 48 of the 1987 Act. It has no further significance, and the Court of Appeal determined it had no relevance to the “proper interpretation” of “legal notice” under Clause 1(5)(ii) of the tenancy agreement.
Conclusion
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Baqir Al-Chaalan & Anor v Abri Group Ltd is a useful judgment because it brings helpful clarity on what is sufficient to amount to valid service of legal proceedings.
The reasoning of the Court of Appeal in considering the tenancy agreement as a whole accords with the ordinary rules of contractual interpretation. It would have been incoherent for identical wording in the agreement to have a different meaning when applied to the landlord and the tenant. The ruling is reflective of the usual approach and practice taken by legal practitioners and landlords when seeking possession via court proceedings. It also clarifies that service at the Property is effective, even when the tenant is not residing there on the date of service, at least in the case of assured tenants.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]