header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
11 March 2016 / Alexander Bastin
Issue: 7690 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

Pattern of life

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Alexander Bastin on forfeiture—pitfalls & remedies

Several issues can arise in forfeiture proceedings where a defendant fails to attend the first hearing and a possession order is made.

The usual reasons for not paying rent or service charges are either a dispute about how much is owed or an inability to pay. In such cases the tenant is usually around to make their point. If nothing is heard from the tenant, then beware.

CPR 6.9 provides that where an individual has not given an address for service they must be served at their “usual or last known residence”.

While that sounds easy, experience suggests many struggle with it. It is not merely a question of belief but, rather, actual knowledge. Is it possible to say confidently that the tenant resides (or used to) at a particular address? What is the evidence?

The leading case on “residence”, Relfo Ltd (in liquidation) v Varsani [2009] EWHC 2297, [2009] All ER (D) 30 (Oct) indicates that the critical test is the defendant’s “pattern of life”. One can have more

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll