Where a notice to quit is addressed to a person by name, that person must be correctly identified if the notice is to be valid, the Court of Appeal has decided allowing an appeal in OG Thomas Amaethyddiaeth Cyf and another v Turner and others [2022] EWCA Civ 1446; [2022] PLSCS 179, a decision which highlights the limitations of the Mannai principle.
The case concerned the tenancy of a farm at Pentre Canol, Dyffryn Arduwy. Owen Thomas was granted an oral tenancy of the farm by the then owner. Since it was an oral tenancy there was no restriction on its assignment. On 30 October 2019, Thomas incorporated OG Thomas Amaethyddiaeth CYF (OG Agriculture Ltd) of which he became sole shareholder, officer and secretary. The company’s registered office was his home address. On 1 November 2019, Thomas assigned the tenancy to the company and continued farming the land on its behalf. It was common ground that the tenancy vested in the company.
On 4 November 2019, the executor of the freehold owner served a notice to quit requiring delivery up of possession of Pentre Canol on 13 November 2020. The notice was addressed to Thomas and served at his home address. The Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 requires notice to quit to be given to the tenant, who may serve a counter notice which requires the landlord to obtain an order for possession. Thomas did not serve a counter notice. The 1986 Act does not require a notice to quit to take any particular form. The notice is served if it is delivered to the recipient, left at its address or sent by post in a registered or recorded delivery letter. It was accepted that the notice was validly served on the company by serving it on Thomas, the company secretary.
At first instance and on first appeal it was decided that the notice to quit was valid despite having been addressed to Thomas, on the ground that a reasonable recipient of the notice would have appreciated that a mistake had been made in naming the tenant and would have read it as having been addressed to the company: Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Assurance Co Ltd [1997] AC 749.
The Court of Appeal considered that it is clear from Mannai that if a notice fails to satisfy the substantive conditions on which its validity turns, the question of how it is to be interpreted does not arise. The key question in the case was whether notice to quit was given to the tenant.
A notice to quit is not required to be addressed to the tenant by name. It may refer to the tenant by designation. It may even be addressed to no one at all but will be valid if served on the tenant. But where the notice is addressed to a person by name, the person on whom it is to be served must be correctly identified: R (Morris) v London Rent Assessment Committee [2002] EWCA Civ 276. Since the notice was addressed to Thomas and not the company, it was invalid.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator
