The plaintiffs let property to the respondents. The notice of shorthold tenancy issued prior to the tenancy commencing had obvious errors in the dates. The issue was as to its validity.
Held: The error was evident, the termination date preceded the commencement date and was plainly a repetition of the date of the notice. But the real question was whether the termination date was sufficiently clear. There was other information provided as to that date. The apppeal was allowed, and the notice was effective. The objective test in Mannai also applied to the validity of a section 20 notice. A notice containing an error, such as a wrong date, may nevertheless be a valid notice if, ‘taking into account the relevant contextual scene’, the notice is quite clear to a reasonable person reading it, so that he would not be misled by it or left in any reasonable doubt as to its effect: ‘Accordingly,what the court must do is to see whether the error in the notice was obvious or evident and second, whether, notwithstanding that error, the notice read in its context is sufficiently clear to leave a reasonable recipient in no reasonable doubt as to the terms of the notice.’ (Peter Gibson LJ)
Judges:
Lord Justice Peter Gibson Mr Justice Bennett
Citations:
[1998] 2 EGLR 25, [1998] EWCA Civ 250
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Mannai 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 . .
Cited – Carradine Properties Ltd v Aslam ChD 1976
Under a break clause in a lease, the relevant date upon which a notice given by either party under the clause might take effect was a date in September 1975, but the landlord’s notice in September 1974 specified a date in 1973. The date in 1973, had . .
Cited – Delta Vale Properties Ltd v Mills CA 1990
A contract for the sale of land provided that, upon service of a notice to complete, the transaction should ‘be completed within 15 working days of service and in respect of such period time shall be of the essence’. The notices however substituted . .
Cited – Panayi and Pyrkos v Roberts CA 1993
A shorthold tenancy notice was issued before the tenancy began, but it gave the wrong date for termination.
Held: The prescribed form required the correct termination date. A notice with a wrong date is not substantially the same as one with a . .
Cited – Yamaha-Kemble Music (UK) Ltd v ARC Properties Ltd ChD 1990
The defendant served a notice on the plaintiff tenants purportedly under the section. The defendant had been the landlord but shortly before serving the notice the defendant had assigned its interest in the property in question to its parent company . .
Cited by:
Cited – Ravenseft 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.143728
