Andrews and Another v Brewer and Another: CA 17 Feb 1997

Tenants challenged an order for possession, saying the form of notice was defective. The date specified in the notice was clearly a clerical error. It provided that the tenancy would commence on 29 May 1993 and end on 28 May 1993, on the face of it, a day before its commencement. The premises had previously been operate as a guest house, and the landlord’s contended that the intended use was for business purposes. The tenants claimed that the judge should have allowed a set off of the costs of repairs undertaken by the tenants against the arrears of rent.
Held: The contract itself made the letting a residential one, and the form of contract was determinative. The letting was an assured tenancy. The notice was defective, but the clerical error was obvious and did not detract in any way from the effect of the notice. It did not mean that it was not substantially to the same effect as that in the prescribed form. The repairs were of items for which no notice of want of repair had been put to the landlords. There was no proper claim against him.


Lord Justice Auld, Mr Justice Morland


[1997] EWCA Civ 1029, [1997] 30 HLR


Housing Act 1988, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985


England and Wales


CitedWolfe v Hogan CA 1949
An issue arose as to the purpose of the original letting. The defendant was the sub-tenant of a large divided room on the ground floor of a house in Chelsea which she used for business purposes. She eventually decided to live there as well.
CitedRussell v Booker CA 1982
The leased premises consisted of a dwelling house and agricultural land which had constituted an agricultural holding. The tenant alleged that the original agreement had been superceded by a subsequent contract which had the effect of moving the . .
CitedPanayi and Pyrkos v Roberts CA 1993
A shorthold tenancy notice was issued before the tenancy began, but it gave the wrong date for termination.
Held: The prescribed form required the correct termination date. A notice with a wrong date is not substantially the same as one with a . .
CitedMorrow v Nadeem 1981
In a notice served pursuant to s25 of the 1954 Act the landlord was described as the individual who was effectively the sole shareholder and director of landlord company, rather than the landlord company itself.
Held: The landlord’s notice was . .
CitedMorris v Liverpool City Council CA 1988
The court was concerned with the implied statutory obligations of repair on the landlord: ‘It is common ground that the door and frame of the flat were part of the structure and exterior of the flat within the meaning of the implied statutory . .
CitedLee-Parker v Izzett (1) ChD 1971
Money expended by a tenant on discharging his landlord’s covenants will in appropriate circumstances operate as a partial or a complete discharge so as to furnish a defence of set-off at law to a claim for unpaid rent. Justice Goff discussed the . .

Cited by:

CitedRavenseft Properties Ltd v Hall; White v Chubb; similar CA 19-Dec-2001
Parties appealed decisions as whether assured shorthold tenancy notices were valid despite errors.
Held: If, notwithstanding errors or omissions, the substance of the notice was sufficiently clear to the reasonable person reading it, then the . .
CitedClickex Ltd v McCann CA 26-May-1999
A failure by a landlord under the pre-1996 assured shorthold tenancy regime, to insert the correct tenancy dates in a shorthold notice, meant that the tenancy became an assured tenancy, since the arrangement failed to meet the requirements to create . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.141425