Court of Appeal upholds possession order service in Al-Chaalan v Abri Group

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against a possession order obtained by housing association Abri Group Limited, ruling that a tenancy agreement's service clause was wide enough to cover the service of court proceedings, not merely contractual notices.

In Baqir Al-Chaalan & Anor v Abri Group Limited [2026] EWCA Civ 946, Lady Justice Asplin, with whom Lord Justice Baker and Lord Justice Newey agreed, upheld the decisions of Deputy District Judge Thomas and Her Honour Judge Bloom, both of which found that possession proceedings concerning a flat in Notting Hill had been properly served.

The case had an unusual factual background. Abri, then known as Octavia Housing, brought possession proceedings against Mr Baqir Al-Chaalan on alternative grounds: that he had sub-let the property or ceased to occupy it as his principal home, or that he had in fact died. The confusion arose after correspondence suggested Mr Al-Chaalan had died while visiting his brother in Iraq, before his daughter later informed Octavia he was alive but unwell and unable to travel. Meanwhile, his nephew, Mr Iyad Abualkibash, who lived at the property and described himself as Mr Al-Chaalan's carer, became embroiled in the litigation, at one stage unsuccessfully applying to set aside the possession order as his uncle's purported "personal representative", despite Mr Al-Chaalan being alive.

A possession order was made in June 2023 when nobody attended on Mr Al-Chaalan's behalf. Solicitors instructed on his behalf later applied to set the order aside, but Deputy District Judge Thomas dismissed that application, finding that Mr Al-Chaalan had in fact been aware of the hearing, drawing that inference partly from his nephew's evident knowledge of proceedings and the fact that uncle and nephew had instructed the same solicitors.

On appeal, Mr Al-Chaalan's counsel argued, first, that the address given in the tenancy agreement did not satisfy the requirements of CPR rule 6.8(a) for service of a claim form, since the clause referred only to "legal notices" and communications "arising from the Agreement" rather than proceedings specifically. Lady Justice Asplin rejected this, finding that a claim form seeking possession was properly characterised as a legal notice arising from the tenancy relationship, and that reading the clause alongside its companion provision, which expressly referenced landlords' statutory service obligations under section 48 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, supported a consistent, broader interpretation across both.

Having found valid service under rule 6.8(a), the court did not need to determine the alternative argument concerning rule 6.9, though Lady Justice Asplin noted she had "serious doubts" about how the lower courts had approached that issue.

The court also rejected arguments that the deputy district judge had made findings of fact unsupported by the evidence when assessing the tenant's application under the test analogous to CPR rule 39.3(5), which requires promptness, good reason for non-attendance and a reasonable prospect of success. Citing Bank of Scotland plc v Pereira, the court held that the judge had been entitled to draw adverse inferences from gaps in the evidence, particularly the tenant's silence on whether he knew of the hearing date.

Finally, the court dismissed the argument that Abri's conduct, including its refusal to communicate directly with the tenant's solicitors and its handling of conflicting information about his death, was sufficiently egregious to justify setting aside the order regardless of proper service. While describing aspects of Abri's approach as "regrettable", the court held this fell well short of the high threshold required.