The tenants gave a notice seeking to exercise their right to acquire the freehold building. The landlord challenged the validity of the notice saying that for a company tenant, the notice had been signed only by a director using his own name with the word ‘Director’.
Held: Sections 99(5) and 13 made a distinction between a document which had to be signed by the company rather than elsewhere where a document could be signed on its behalf.
Judges:
Ward, Lloyd, Pitchford LJJ
Citations:
[2010] EWCA Civ 314, [2010] 1 WLR 2750, [2010] 15 EG 94 (CS), [2010] 3 All ER 391, [2010] HLR 34, [2010] 25 EG 104, [2010] NPC 42
Links:
Statutes:
Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 13, Companies Act 1989 130, Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 1, Companies Act 2006 44
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Cascades and Quayside Ltd v Cascades Freehold Ltd CA 6-Dec-2007
Gibson LJ said: ‘it is not in dispute that the purpose of section 99(5) in requiring the tenant himself to sign it and not allowing an agent to do so, must have been so that the tenant really knew what he was doing.’ . .
Cited – St Ermins Property Company Limited v Tingay ChD 2002
A signature by an agent appointed under a power of attorney did not satisfy the statutory requirement of signature by the tenant on a section 13 notice. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Williams and Others v Redcard Ltd and Others CA 20-Apr-2011
The parties disputed whether the defendant company had effectively executed a contract for the sale of land. Two authorised signatories of the company had signed it, but there was no wording to attribute their acts to the company.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company, Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.406566
