‘The Act of Parliament provides that a right of re-entry or forfeiture for breach of covenant in a lease shall not be enforceable unless the lessor serves on the lessee a notice specifying the particular breach complained of, and if the breach is capable of remedy requiring the lessee to remedy the breach. In that sentence ‘breach complained of’ means (see the earlier words of the section) breach of a covenant in the lease of which the lessor complains. He must specify the particular breach of the covenant in question. What he has to do is to give a notice specifying the particular breach of a covenant in the lease of which he makes complaint. If the breach complained of be breach of a covenant to repair, the obvious intention of the legislature is that the attention of the tenant shall be particularly called to the particular condition of the premises which the tenant is required to remedy, so that he may remedy it if he be so minded. The right of re-entry or forfeiture arises upon neglect on the part of the tenant to remedy the condition of the premises to which his attention is thus called. It is not, for instance, sufficient that the lessor should give the tenant notice that he has broken the covenant to repair. The tenant is entitled to know how he is said to have broken it. For instance, that he has broken it by not reglazing broken windows, or by not rebuilding a demolished party wall, or by not keeping the roof in proper repair. But the lessor is not bound to go on and say the broken windows are situate at such and such places or the repair which the roof requires is to replace so many tiles or slates found in such and such positions. The notice must be one which calls the tenant’s attention to the particular condition of the premises which is alleged to be defective. It need not identify every defect in the conditions to which attention is called. The breach of covenant must arise by either doing or neglecting to do some act. The particular breach complained of is specified when the act which the tenant has done or which the tenant has neglected to do is specifically pointed out. This is done when the lessor says you have not repaired the roof or you have not glazed the windows. The argument has largely proceeded in my opinion upon a confusion between two things which are distinct, namely, specifying the particular breach complained of and giving particulars of the breaches complained of. The lessor is bound to do the former, he is not bound to do the latter.’
Buckley LJ, Kennedy LJ (majority), Vaughan Williams LJ (dissenting)
[1914] 2 KB 109
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed to – Fox v Jolly HL 1916
The House referred to a schedule of repair served on the tenant: ‘Now the schedule is attacked on several grounds. It is said that it does not tell the tenant what it is he ought to do in order to remedy the breach of which complaint is made. I am . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Fox v Jolly HL 1916
The House referred to a schedule of repair served on the tenant: ‘Now the schedule is attacked on several grounds. It is said that it does not tell the tenant what it is he ought to do in order to remedy the breach of which complaint is made. I am . .
Cited – Adagio Properties Limited v Ansari CA 22-Jan-1998
The requirement on a landlord to specify the breach in a s146 notice, did not require each specific detail to be given; the notice must give the tenant however opportunity to remedy the defects. The landlord had become concerned that the tenant was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 October 2021; Ref: scu.185096