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 already passed and could not possibly have been intended by him. It must have been a clerical error, and could properly be read as intended to refer to 1975.
Held: The notice was effective to determine the lease on 27 September 1975. ‘In an option clause the requirement is that a party must strictly comply with the condition for its exercise. If the condition includes the giving of a particular notice, it seems to me that the logical first approach is to interpret the notice, looking at the words and applying legal principles to their construction, and then ask whether it complies with the strict requirements as to the exercise of the option . . a benevolent approach could be applied in this case . . because reasonably read by a reasonable tenant the mistake is obvious on the face of it, and there is no doubt what the mistake was. Therefore one interprets the notice as asserting an intention to determine in 1975. It is true that if whoever made the mistake had typed 1976 instead of 1973, the error would probably have been incurable because although the tenant might suspect there was a slip, it might be that the landlord did intend 1976, not knowing or understanding his rights under the lease. In such a case the tenant would be entitled to disregard the notice but because a past date was given in the notice it is insensible and therefore an authority such as the Duke of Bedford’s case is in point.’
Goulding J
[1976] 1 WLR 442, [1976] 1 All ER 573
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Doe d Duke of Bedford v Kightley 1796
The court could take a benevolent approach in construing a notice with a clerical error. . .
Distinguished – Hankey v Clavering CA 1942
A lease term ran for 21 years from 25 December 1934. A break clause gave either party the right to determine the lease at the expiration of the first seven years, by six calendar months’ notice. The landlord gave notice to the tenant’s solicitors in . .
Cited by:
Cited – Mannai 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 . .
Preferred – Micrografix v Woking 8 Ltd ChD 1995
The tenants gave a notice determining the lease on 23 March 1995 when under the relevant clause they could only have done so on 23 June 1995. Jacob J. held that, as the landlords knew that the date of determination could only be 23 June 1995, they . .
Cited – York and Another v Casey and Another CA 16-Feb-1998
The plaintiffs let property to the respondents. The notice of shorthold tenancy issued prior to the tenancy commencing had obvious errors in the dates. The issue was as to its validity.
Held: The error was evident, the termination date . .
Cited – 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.185082