Category: Landlord and Tenant

Vincent v Premo Enterprises (Voucher Sales) Ltd: CA 1969

A lease and counterpart were engrossed and the counterpart was sealed by the defendant tenant company. The company raised with its solicitors the question as to the date from which rent was to run. Before the point was settled, the tenant sought to withdraw. At first instance the company was found to have delivered the counterpart as an escrow but that it was too late for the landlords to claim that the escrow condition had been fulfilled.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The company argued that there was no delivery. The landlords argued that ‘sealing by a company imports delivery’. The trial judge was entitled to find delivery of the counterpart as an escrow. Winn LJ said that ‘[a]part altogether from the technical point under section 74’, Beesly was to be noted.
Lord Denning confirmed that: ‘The law as to ‘delivery’ of a deed is of ancient date. But it is reasonably clear. A deed is very different from a contract. On a contract for the sale of land, the contract is not binding on the parties until they have exchanged their parts. But with a deed it is different. A deed is binding on the maker of it, even though the parts have not been exchanged, as long as it has been signed, sealed and delivered. ‘Delivery’ in this connection does not mean ‘handed over’ to the other side. It means delivered in the old legal sense, namely, an act done so as to evince an intention to be bound. Even though the deed remains in the possession of the maker, or of his solicitor, he is bound by it if he has done some act evincing an intention to be bound, as by saying: ‘I deliver this my act and deed.’ He may, however, make the ‘delivery’ conditional: in which case the deed is called an ‘escrow’ which becomes binding when the condition is fulfilled.’
Winn LJ said: ‘it might be very helpful in modem life if there were some modification of the law, departing somewhat from the strictness of the old rule . . I think it might be more realistic to depend upon physical movement or legal control of the document after the time when it is sealed, so that it would become the law that some adoptive demonstration is required additionally to the mere affixing of the seal. Concentration upon the movement of the deed thereafter would make it easier to solve the question, has the maker by parting with it to such extent and manner as may be proved expressed an intention – indicated, demonstrated an intention – for it to be immediately binding, or demonstrated a suspensive intention that it shall not be immediately binding upon him but only binding if some particular event does occur?’

Lord Denning MR, Winn LJ, Fenton Atkinson L
[1969] 2 QB 609
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council v Torkington CA 31-Oct-2003
The proposed landlord had sealed the lease, but the tenant was to seal and deliver his part by a certain date. The respondent purported to complete the lease later.
Held: Under the 1985 Act completion would require writing, intention and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.188675

Glen International Ltd v Triplerose Ltd: CA 23 Mar 2007

Service on a solicitor who does not have authority to accept service of the particular notice on behalf of his client is not valid service on that party.

[2007] EWCA Civ 388, [2007] L and TR 28
Bailii
Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 48
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – UKI (Kingsway) Ltd v Westminster City Council SC 17-Dec-2018
Short issue as to the requirements for valid ‘service’ of a completion notice so as to bring a newly completed building within liability for non-domestic rates. The notice had been served by email where no statutory authority existed for this.
Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.251762

Galinski v McHugh: 5 Oct 1988

A landlord’s notice under section 4 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 had been served on the tenant’s solicitors, who had confirmed that they had authority to accept service. Later the tenant challenged the validity of the service.
Held: Service of a notice under the Act on the tenant’s solicitors was valid and effective. They were its duly authorised agents: ‘In the circumstances we can see no good reason why section 23(1) or anything else should prevent the ordinary rules as to service of notice as between landlord and tenant, and the ordinary rules of agency, from operating in the present case. As we have already said, it is common ground that, under the general law of landlord and tenant, it is possible for good service of a landlord’s notice to be effected by serving it on the duly authorised agent of the tenant (and vice versa).’
and: ‘This is a subsection appearing in an Act which . . contains a number of provisions requiring the giving of notice by one person to another and correspondingly entitling that other person to receive it. In our judgment, the object of its inclusion … is not to protect the person upon whom the right to receive the notice is conferred by other statutory provisions. On the contrary, section 23(1) is intended to assist the person who is obliged to serve the notice, by offering him choices of mode of service which will be deemed to be valid service, even if in the event the intended recipient does not in fact receive it .’

Slade LJ
[1989] 1 EGLR 109, (1988) 57 P and CR 359, Independent 10-Oct-1988
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 4, Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 23(1))
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Naidu v Yenula Properties Ltd CA 23-May-2002
This was a second appeal, this time by a former tenant and was as to whether a tenancy was a shorthold tenancy or otherwise. The judge had found that the tenancy commenced in 1995, and no notice of shorthold tenancy having been given, it was an . .
Cited – Yenula Properties Ltd v Naidu ChD 18-Jul-2002
The landlord appealed a finding of the county court that a notice of assured shorthold tenancy needed to be served on the tenant personally. Here the notice had been served on the proposed tenant’s solicitors.
Held: Though Galinski applied to . .
Cited – Blunden v Frogmore Investments Ltd CA 30-Apr-2002
The tenant had a lease of business premises. The premises were damaged in a terrorist attack, and the landlord served a notice terminating the lease. The lease gave the right to the landlord to determine the lease if the property was incapable of . .
Cited – Beanby Estates Ltd v Egg Stores (Stamford Hill) Ltd ChD 9-May-2003
The landlord had served a notice under the 1954 Act. The tenant served a counter notice, but the question was whether he was late, or out of time.
Held: The combination of the various provisions meant that the landlord’s notice had irrevocably . .
Applied – C A Webber (Transport) Ltd v Railtrack plc CA 15-Jul-2003
A notice served under s25 of the 1954 Act, being sent by recorded delivery to the tenant at its place of abode, was irrebuttably deemed to have been served on the day it was posted. Section 23 of the 1927 Act operated to disapply section 7 of the . .
Preferred – Commercial Union Life Assurance Co Ltd v Moustafa 1999
A landlord gave notice to the original lessees of business premises, under section 17 of the 1995 Act. It was sent by recorded delivery to the lessees’ last known residential address but was returned to the sender by the Royal Mail. Nevertheless the . .
Cited – UKI (Kingsway) Ltd v Westminster City Council SC 17-Dec-2018
Short issue as to the requirements for valid ‘service’ of a completion notice so as to bring a newly completed building within liability for non-domestic rates. The notice had been served by email where no statutory authority existed for this.
Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.179823

Sun Alliance and London Assurance Co Ltd v Hayman: CA 1975

The two-sided act of giving and receiving of a notice may be deemed to be done by some act other than actual receipt of the notification by the recipient.
Lord Salmon said: ‘Statutes and contracts often contain a provision that notice may be served on a person by leaving it at his last known place of abode or by sending it to him there through the post. The effect of such a provision is that if notice is served by any of the prescribed methods of service, it is, in law, treated as having been given and received.’
and
‘According to the ordinary and natural use of English words, giving a notice means causing a notice to be received. Therefore, any requirement in a statute or a contract for the giving of a notice can be complied with only by causing the notice to be actually received – unless the context or some statutory or contractual provision otherwise provides . . ‘

Lord Salmon, Stephenson LJ and McKenna J
[1975] 1 WLR 177
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Haywood SC 25-Apr-2018
Notice of dismissal begins when received by worker
The court was asked: ‘If an employee is dismissed on written notice posted to his home address, when does the notice period begin to run? Is it when the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of post? Or when it was in fact . .
Cited – UKI (Kingsway) Ltd v Westminster City Council SC 17-Dec-2018
Short issue as to the requirements for valid ‘service’ of a completion notice so as to bring a newly completed building within liability for non-domestic rates. The notice had been served by email where no statutory authority existed for this.
Litigation Practice, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.666009

Townsends Carriers Ltd v Pfizer Ltd: 1977

A break notice had been served not by the tenant company but by an associated company, the service not being on the landlord company but an associated company.
Held: Because the tenant and the landlord had allowed their respective associated companies to deal with the property as if they were landlord and tenant respectively in respect of matters such as an increase in the rent and variations of the lease, the break notice had been validly served.
The Vice-Chancellor also noted but rejected an argument that the relevant clause required the tenant to ‘give’ notice to the landlord, and that, although the landlord had ultimately received the notice, ‘no notice had ever been given to the landlord as such’: ‘I do not think that a requirement to ‘give’ notice is one that excludes the indirect giving of notice. The question is whether the notice has been given, not whether it has been given directly. If the notice emanates from the giver and reaches the ultimate recipient, I do not think that it matters if it has passed through more hands than one in transit.’

Sir Robert Megarry VC
[1977] 33 P and CR 361
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Dun and Bradstreet Software Services (England) Ltd; Dun and Bradstreet Software Services Ltd v Provident Mutual Life Assurance Association and General Accident Linked Life Assurance CA 9-Jun-1997
Break clauses had been exercised on behalf of the plaintiffs. The defendant landlords appealed a decision upholding the notices. A penalty rent had been sought.
Held: There had been no sufficient agency established to validate the notice. The . .
Cited – MW Trustees Ltd and Others v Telular Corporation ChD 31-Jan-2011
The claimants sought a declaration that its tenants had not served an effective notice to break the lease. The lease contained mandatory provisions for service of any notice, and the tenant’s break notice had been served, it said, on the wrong . .
Cited – UKI (Kingsway) Ltd v Westminster City Council SC 17-Dec-2018
Short issue as to the requirements for valid ‘service’ of a completion notice so as to bring a newly completed building within liability for non-domestic rates. The notice had been served by email where no statutory authority existed for this.
Landlord and Tenant, Agency

Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.188161

Kyriacou v Linden (Landlord and Tenant – Breach of Covenant): UTLC 18 Nov 2021

covenant requiring leaseholder to insure in joint names with landlord – whether covenant breached – costs – whether landlord behaved unreasonably in conducting proceedings – appeal allowed – decision re-made

Martin Rodger QC, Deputy Chamber President
[2021] UKUT 288 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.670302