Barclays Bank plc v Bee and Another: CA 10 Jul 2001

The landlord’s solicitors, by mistake, sent two notices to the tenant in the same letter. One notice opposed the grant of a new tenancy but on an invalid ground, and the other said a new tenancy would not be opposed. The tenant sought clarification. The landlord’s solicitors purported to withdraw both notices, and served a third notice opposing the grant of a new tenancy.
Held: A notice once served could not be withdrawn. The first invalid notice was of no effect, but the second contradicted it, and an informed and reasonable tenant would not be able to ascertain the intention of the landlord from the first two notices. The net effect was that no valid notice had been given in the first two notices, and the landlord could serve the third and effective notice to bind itself not to oppose the grant of a new tenancy.


Aldous LJ, Arden LJ, Wilson J


Times 03-Aug-2001, Gazette 06-Sep-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1126, [2001] 29 EG 121 (CS)




Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 25


England and Wales


CitedByrnlea Property Investments Ltd v Ramsay CA 1969
It was a requirement under the 1967 Act for the notice of a lessee, seeking to extend his interest under that Act, to indicate whether he was seeking the freehold or an extended lease. The tenant failed to do so.
Held: This failure was fatal. . .
CitedMannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Assurance HL 21-May-1997
Minor Irregularity in Break Notice Not Fatal
Leases contained clauses allowing the tenant to break the lease by serving not less than six months notice to expire on the third anniversary of the commencement date of the term of the lease. The tenant gave notice to determine the leases on 12th . .
CitedLewis v MTC Cars Ltd ChD 1974
The landlord served notice in a form which contained two alternatives, but he failed to strike out one. He added a statement as to why he opposed a new tenancy.
Held: The notice was effective.
Templeman J said: ‘No one reading that notice . .
CitedCarradine Properties Ltd v Aslam ChD 1976
Under a break clause in a lease, the relevant date upon which a notice given by either party under the clause might take effect was a date in September 1975, but the landlord’s notice in September 1974 specified a date in 1973. The date in 1973, had . .

Cited by:

CitedLay and others v Ackerman and Another CA 4-Mar-2004
Notices had been served by tenants under the Acts. The properties were on a large estate where the freeholds had been divided and assigned to different bodies, and there were inconsistencies in identifying the landlords. The landlords served a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159491