A lender obtained possession and someone claiming to be living at the property sought a stay on the grounds the lender failed to serve a notice on the occupier when it commenced proceedings.
The court rejected the stay because court documents filed by the alleged occupier proved he had had known about the proceedings for over 2 years. The judge commented:
The purpose of the rule is to provide occupiers of the land subject to an application for possession with the opportunity to assert any rights they may have. The court papers establish the applicant was well aware of the proceedings and, if he had wished to assert rights stemming from his occupancy, he has already had the opportunity to do so.
The Supreme Court Rules allow me to dispense compliance with the rules, I propose to do so as the protection afforded by the rule that the occupier be served is superfluous.