The tenant had served a notice to review the rent. The tenent delivered a counter notice personally be posting it through the letter box. The lease provided that the notice was to be served at the last known business address of the landlord. The landlord had informed the tenant’s solicitor, but not the tenant direct that it had moved. The solicitor had not told his client.
Held: Service of the notice of change of address on the tenant’s solicitor was sufficient to count as service of the tenant, and the tenant’s notice was misdelivered and had not been validly served. It was not unreasonable for Arundel to have concerns about a proposed sub-tenancy and to raise them with Mr Khokher’s advisers to find out what, if anything, was going on. Arundel was entitled to be told the true and precise nature of the transaction, to which it was asked to consent. In view of separate doubts about the veracity of information supplied to the court by the tenant and his solicitor, the papers were to be referred to the Law Society.
Judges:
Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Tuckey Lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers, Mr
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 1784
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Metropolitan Properties v Cordery CA 1979
The tenant sought to impose knowledge by the landlord of the condition of the property. The landlord employed porters in the building.
Held: The presence of the porters was sufficient to fix the landlord with knowledge of the breach of his . .
Cited – Go West Ltd v Spigarolo and Another CA 31-Jan-2003
The tenant applied for a licence to assign the lease under section 1. The landlord refused consent, but the parties continued to negotiate. The tenant argued that the landlord’s continuation of negotiations showed the earlier counter-notice to have . .
Cited – Fuller’s Theatre and Vaudeville Co Ltd v Rofe PC 19-Feb-1923
New South Wales – A party requested to give his consent to a proposed transaction was entitled to be given sufficient information to make his assessment in full knowledge of the circumstances. . .
See Also – Arundel Corporation (an Overseas Company) v Mohammed Ramzan Khokher CA 9-Apr-2003
In the course of an application under the Landlord and Tenant Act, the landlord sought to adduce on appeal evidence that the tenant and his solicitors had sought to deceive the court.
Held: The application should not be heard in private since . .
See Also – Khokher v Arundel Corporation CA 11-Jul-2002
. .
Cited by:
See Also – Arundel Corporation (an Overseas Company) v Mohammed Ramzan Khokher CA 9-Apr-2003
In the course of an application under the Landlord and Tenant Act, the landlord sought to adduce on appeal evidence that the tenant and his solicitors had sought to deceive the court.
Held: The application should not be heard in private since . .
See Also – Khokher v Arundel Corporation CA 11-Jul-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.188688