Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part II — Application for leave to appeal and extension of time for appealing by plaintiff tenant from order in county court proceedings — County court judge had dismissed plaintiff’s application for declaration that landlords’ notice purporting to terminate plaintiff’s business tenancy was invalid — Landlords’ notice had been in the old Form 7 in Appendix 1 to the Landlord and Tenant (Notices) Regulations 1969 instead of the new Form 1 in Schedule 2 to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II (Notices) Regulations 1983 — The new form differed in several ways including a large and prominently printed box warning the recipient of the notice to act quickly and, in case of doubt, to obtain advice immediately — However, the absence of the box had no adverse consequences in the present case, as the tenant did obtain advice and took the appropriate steps according to the timetable — The judge decided that the old form was substantially to the same effect as the new one and refused leave to appeal — The present application for leave was out of time because neither the plaintiff nor his solicitors had appreciated the urgency of such application — Held that there was not enough to merit the granting of leave — Application dismissed
No cases are
referred to in this report.
This was an
application by Roger William Morris for leave to appeal and an extension of
time for appealing from an order made by Judge Macnair at Lambeth County Court.
The applicant had as plaintiff sought a declaration that a notice of
termination of his business tenancy served by his landlords, Mukesh Kanubhai
Patel, Parul Narendra Patel and Arun Jashbahi Patel was invalid as being in the
wrong form. Judge Macnair had decided against the applicant and refused him
leave to appeal.
Jonathan Gaunt
(instructed by Proctor Gillett) appeared on behalf of the applicant; M A P
Hopmeier (instructed by J B Wheatley & Co) represented the respondents.
Giving
judgment, DILLON LJ said: This is an application for leave to appeal and an extension
of time for appealing by a Mr Morris, who is the plaintiff in proceedings in
the Lambeth County Court. The order against which leave to appeal is sought was
made by His Honour Judge Macnair on April 16 of this year. It was an order
whereby he dismissed an application by the plaintiff for a declaration that a
notice served on him under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
purporting to terminate his business tenancy of certain premises was invalid.
The judge refused leave to appeal. The application for leave to appeal and an
extension of time was only issued on May 28. That is out of time, though not so
far out of time as to cause serious prejudice. The reason why it is out of time
is that neither the plaintiff nor his solicitors appreciated the urgency of
applications for leave to appeal.
The
substantive matter arises in this way. The notice purporting to terminate the
plaintiff’s tenancy, which was given on March 21 1985 by the solicitors for the
defendants, was in the familiar old Form 7 in Appendix 1 to the Landlord and
Tenant (Notices) Regulations 1969. The solicitors for the landlords had
apparently not appreciated that that form had been replaced by a new Form 1 in
Schedule 2 to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part II (Notices) Regulations
1983. That new form contains differences. Firstly, there is a large and heavily
printed box advising the recipient of the notice to act quickly and, if in any
doubt, to take immediate advice from a solicitor, surveyor or Citizens’ Advice
Bureau. The absence of that box did not have any consequences in the present
case since the plaintiff did consult solicitors and did take the appropriate
steps according to the timetable required by the Act. The other difference is
in the drafting of the notes on the back of the notice; these are more
explanatory and useful in the new form of notice.
The
substantive question for Judge Macnair to decide was whether the old Form 7 was
a form substantially to the like effect as the Form 1 of Schedule 2 to the new
regulations. He said that it was. It seems to me he was right and there is not
enough in this appeal to merit the granting of leave to appeal. Consequently,
this application is dismissed.
The
application was dismissed with costs.
