Recognized HTML document -
[Cached Version]
Published on: 7/15/2007
Last Visited: 11/30/2007
Mr Peter Ward Mr J S Chohan
...
At the hearing Mr Ward elected not to proceed with the wounds set out at (ii) and (iv) above.
We accept that, where there is any doubt as to the entitlement of the company to acquire the right to manage, the burden of proof is on the company and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.Mr Ward questioned the motives of a number of leaseholders who had supported the claim, but their motives are irrelevant to our determination, as are any questions as to the suitability of the members of the company to manage the block.
...
We are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that an attempt was made by the Royal Mail to deliver a copy of the notice to the company's registered office on 5 January 2007 by first class recorded delivery and that Mr Ward refused to accept it.There is no merit in Mr Ward's argument that service by recorded delivery is not good service.
...
16. Mr Ward said that the address given in the notice was not sufficiently precise because it omitted the number of the flat which was the registered office and that if, which he denied, the address was sufficiently precise, the company had "compromised its own compliance" by accepting the counter-notices at a different address, which was the business address of Buy Your Freehold Limited.
...
Re said that the registered number of the company was given in the claim notice and that Mr Ward was in fact aware of the address of the company's registered office as his letter dated 6 February 2007 (at page 13B of the company's bundle) showed.He said that the omission of "Flat 4" was an inaccuracy in the particulars within the meaning of section 81(1) of the Act which did not invalidate the claim notice.
We are satisfied that the omission of "Flat 4" from the address of the company's registered office was an inaccuracy which, in the circumstances, should be not taken to invalidate the claim notice.The relevant circumstances are that the landlord was in fact aware of the full address of the company's registered office as Mr Ward's letter dated 6 February 2007 shows, and was accordingly not misled or prejudiced by the omission of the flat number of the registered office of the company.
iv. Did the claim c otice comply with section 80(1) and 80(6) of the Act
Section 80(6) of the Act provides that the claim notice must specify a date, not earlier than one month after the relevant date, by which each person who was given the notice under section 79(6) may respond to it by giving a counter-notice under section 84.Mr Ward submitted that since the notice was not received by the landlord there was no relevant date within the meaning of section 79(1).We have determined in paragraphs 10 and 11 above the landlord received a copy of the claim notice and we accordingly reject this submission.
7
Mr Ward submitted that, as "membership" and "member" are not defined by the Act, the general rules as to what constitutes membership of a company apply.
...
Mr Ward submitted that it had not been established that a register of members conforming with the requirements of the Companies Act existed on the relevant date, nor had it been established that anyone other than Mr Guraya was a member of the company on that date.
...
Mr Ward requested an award of up to ,500 under paragraph 10 of Schedule 12 to the Act on the ground that Mr Guraya had been a dishonest witness and had been late for both hearings.
13 online sources [ view sources ]
Profile is not claimed [ claim profile ]
