Lay and others v Ackerman and Another: CA 4 Mar 2004

Notices had been served by tenants under the Acts. The properties were on a large estate where the freeholds had been divided and assigned to different bodies, and there were inconsistencies in identifying the landlords. The landlords served a counter-notice but it misidentified the landlord. The landlord appealed a finding that his notice was invalid.
Held: Applying Mannai: ‘the answer to the question whether the mis-identification of the landlord was ‘deliberate’ or not depends on how one puts the question. If one were to ask whether the solicitors who prepared the Counter-Notice intended to identify the landlord in the Counter-Notice as the PFCS Trustees, the answer would be in the affirmative. To that extent the mis-identification was deliberate. On the other hand, if one was to ask whether the solicitors had intended to identify someone other than the actual landlord as the landlord, the answer would be in the negative. To that extent the mis-identification was a mistake. ‘ and ‘One must first consider whether there was a mistake in the information contained in the notice (as there was as to the date in Mannai, and there was as to the landlord, in the present case). If there was such a mistake, one must then consider how, in the light of the mistake, a reasonable person in the position of the recipient would have understood the notice in the circumstances of the particular case. Finally one must consider whether, as a result, the notice would have been understood as conveying the information required by the contractual, statutory or common law provision pursuant to which it was served.’ A mis-identification of the landlord need not be fatal to the notice: ‘the effect of an error in a statutory notice can and should be judged by reference to the approach laid down in Mannai.’ The notice was valid.


[2004] EWCA Civ 184




Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 45


England and Wales


CitedMannai 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 . .
CitedPearson v Alyo CA 1990
Effect of mistake in notice given under the Act. . .
CitedMorrow v Nadeem 1981
In a notice served pursuant to s25 of the 1954 Act the landlord was described as the individual who was effectively the sole shareholder and director of landlord company, rather than the landlord company itself.
Held: The landlord’s notice was . .
CitedLatifi v Colherne Court Freehold Limited 2003
Estoppel and waiver are open to the recipient of a notice (including a counter-notice) under 1993 Act, in the same way as they are open to the recipient of a notice (or indeed, a counter-notice) under Part II of the 1954 Act. . .
CitedShelley v United Artists Corporation Limited CA 1989
There was a subletting arrangement. United Artists, who were the sub-tenant’s competent landlord under Part II of the 1954 Act, served a notice on the tenant, and then a further notice on the head landlord. The result of second notice was that . .
CitedBurman v Mount Cook Land Ltd CA 20-Nov-2001
The tenant occupied a flat under a long lease at a low rent. She was entitled to acquire the freehold on payment of a premium and after following the procedure under the Act. The landlord served a purported counter notice which did not state in . .
CitedSpeedwell Estates Limited and Covent Garden Group Limited v Jane Rush Dalziel and others CA 31-Jul-2001
Tenants sought to purchase the freehold reversion of their properties under leasehold enfranchisement. The landlord objected that the forms were incomplete and invalid. The tenants accepted that there were defects, but asserted that these were not . .
CitedBarclays 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. . .
CitedB Osborn and Co Ltd v Dior and others CA 22-Jan-2003
Notices were given which were incorrect.
Held: The notices were upheld despite the errors. . .
CitedRavenseft Properties Ltd v Hall; White v Chubb; similar CA 19-Dec-2001
Parties appealed decisions as whether assured shorthold tenancy notices were valid despite errors.
Held: If, notwithstanding errors or omissions, the substance of the notice was sufficiently clear to the reasonable person reading it, then the . .
CitedLemmerbell Limited and Another v Britannia LAS Direct Limited CA 8-Oct-1998
A break notice was served. The tenant had informally assigned the premises, and the break notice had been purported to be exercised by the assignee.
Held: The notice was invalid. ‘The present case seems to me to bear little resemblance to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.194429