Harker and others (Appellants) v Hubert and another (Respondents)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0067

Parties

Appellant(s)

Helen Harker, Hymer Powell, Juliana Francisca Benjamin

Respondent(s)

Hugues Hubert and Radia Hamdaoui

Issue

What is the proper interpretation of regulation 36(6)(b) of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998?

Facts

This appeal concerns a claim for possession of a freehold property in London (“the property”). The tenants were granted an assured shorthold tenancy (“AST”) of the property on 9 November 2007. Thereafter, they were granted a new 12-month tenancy each year until 9 November 2019. Since 9 November 2020, there has been a statutory periodic tenancy. The claim concerns the validity of a notice served by the appellant landlords on the respondent tenants under the Housing Act 1988 (“Housing Act”) s21 on 2 November 2023 (“the notice”). If the notice is valid then, as a matter of law, the landlords are entitled to an order for possession. The question of validity turns on whether the landlords were entitled to serve the notice. The tenants argued that the landlords were not entitled to serve the notice. Their defence was that the notice was invalid for various reasons, including that no gas safety record had been provided before they went into occupation of the property in 2007, as required by the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 (“Gas Safety Regulations”). They further argued that the landlords breached the Assured Shorthold Tenancy Notices and Prescribed Requirements (England) Regulations 2015 (“2015 Regulations”) regulation 2, which requires compliance with Gas Safety Regulations regulation 36 (the requirement to provide a tenant with a gas safety certificate) in order to comply with Housing Act section 21A. Introduced in 2015, section 21A prevents landlords serving a section 21 notice if there is a breach of a prescribed requirement. After a trial on 13 February 2025, Deputy District Judge Reissner concluded that the landlords were not required to provide the tenants with a copy of the pre-occupation gas safety record. The landlords were entitled to serve the notice. He ordered the tenants to give up possession and to pay the landlords’ costs. The possession order was made pursuant to Housing Act s21 on 27 February 2025. The tenants appealed. His Honour Judge Hellman allowed the appeal, holding that the landlords were required to give a copy of the pre-occupation gas safety record as a condition of serving a section 21 notice. DDJ Reissner had erred in finding that, for the requirement that the landlord give the tenant a pre-occupation gas safety record to be a condition for serving a section 21 notice, this would involve construing regulation 2 of the 2015 Regulations so as to have retrospective effect. HHJ Hellman set aside the possession order and consequently the order for costs. The landlords appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The landlords appeal to the Supreme Court, seeking restoration of the original possession order made by DDJ Reissner.