Shaws (EAL) Ltd v Pennycook: CA 2 Feb 2004

Tenant’s First Notice to terminate, stood

The landlord served a notice to terminate the business lease. The tenant first served a notice to say that it would not seek a new lease, but then, and still within the time limit, it served a second counter-notice seeking a new tenancy. The landlord sought to rely upon the first notice only.
Held: The first notice remained the effective one. The counter-notice was a positive counter-notice within Grafton Street. The Bridgers case had not been cited, and it was binding. Did the application of the ruling in Grafton Street violate the tenant’s Convention Rights? The effect of the interpretation of the section removed a right rather than delimited it. Article 1 was engaged but not violated. Art 6.1 guaranteed the right of access to a court, but not the content of any particular civil right. Art 6 if engaged was not violated.

Thorpe, Arden, LJJ, Sir Martin Nourse
[2004] EWCA Civ 100, Times 20-Feb-2004, Gazette 18-Mar-2004, [2004] 2 All ER 665, [2004] Ch 296, [2004] L and TR 34, [2004] 2 WLR 1331, [2004] 2 EGLR 55, [2004] 18 EG 102
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 24 26, European Convention on Human Rights P-1 A1
England and Wales
Appeal fromPennycook v Shaws (EAL) Ltd ChD 28-Nov-2002
The landlord served a notice to terminate the tenancy. By mistake the tenant’s solicitors served a counter-notice that their client did not wish to renew. Realising their mistake, they served a second counter-notice, purporting to revoke the first. . .
CitedIn re 14 Grafton Street London W1 ChD 1971
The landlord served a notice to terminate the tenancy. The tenant served a notice to say that he did want a new tenancy, but the law then changed and he purported to withdraw his notice, and gave up possession claiming compensation for improvements. . .
CitedDoe Ex Dim Cheny v Batten 13-Feb-1775
The tenant gave notice to quit but failed to leave the premises by the due date (Michaelmas). The landlord sued for ejectment, but then accepted a quarter’s rent (due at Christmas). Did this create a new tenancy?
Held: The issue depended on . .
CitedCentral Estates (Belgravia) Ltd v Woolgar (No 2) CA 20-Jun-1972
Right to forfeit waived by rent demand
The landlords’ managing agents learned that the tenant had been convicted of keeping a brothel at the premises and served a section 146 notice intending to forfeit the tenancy. He told his staff and instructed them not to demand or accept rent. But . .
CitedBaglarbasi v Deedmethod Ltd ChD 1991
A counter notice under the Act, once given was irrevocable. Once a positive counter notice was served, the landlord could proceed on the basis that the tenant was willing to give up possession. . .
CitedBridgers and Hamptons Residential v Stanford CA 1991
The court considered a notice which did not comply with section 25 in several respects. One defect was that it did not comply with 25(5) since it only required the tenants to notify the landlord if they were not willing to give up possession: it . .
CitedOliver Ashworth (Holdings) Limited v Ballard (Kent) Limited CA 18-Mar-1999
In order for the landlord to claim double rent where a tenant held over unlawfully after the tenancy was determined, the landlord must not do anything to indicate that the lease might be continuing, for example by denying the validity of break . .

Cited by:
CitedHorsham Properties Group Ltd v Clark and Another ChD 8-Oct-2008
The court was asked whether section 101 of the 1925 Act infringes the Convention rights of residential mortgagors by allowing mortgagees to overreach the mortgagor by selling the property out of court, without first obtaining a court order either . .
CitedSimpson v Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust CA 12-Oct-2011
The court was asked whether it was possible to assign as a chose in action a cause of action in tort for damages for personal injury, and if so under what circumstances it was possible.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The claimant did not have . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Human Rights

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.193633