The court considered a lessor’s counter-notice served under s.21 of the 1993 Act. HH Judge Dight had to construe s.99(1) of the 1993 Act which provides:
‘(1) Any notice required or authorised to be given under this Part –
(a) shall be in writing; and
(b) may be sent by post.’
Held: The use of the word ‘may’ in subsection (b) meant that the section was permissive but that the requirement that the notice should be in writing excluded service by e-mail. Much of his reasoning turned on the fact that s.13 of the 1993 Act requires a notice to be signed which the judge held indicated that what had to be served was the original and not a copy document. This was, he said, sufficient to evince a contrary intention so as to exclude the definition of ‘writing’ in Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act which includes: ‘typing, printing, lithography, photography and other modes of representing or reproducing words in a visible form . . ‘.
HH Judge Dight
[2017] L and TR 4
Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 21
England and Wales
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.655046
