Appellants administering property through complex series of trusts — Respondent leaseholders serving notices of claim under section 42 of Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 — Appellants serving section 45 counternotices — Counternotices misstating name of trustees — Validity of counternotices — Appeal allowed
The respondents leased premises in two adjoining properties administered by the appellants through a complex series of trusts. The same solicitor acted on behalf of the trustees for both properties. In 2001, the respondents served notices of claim, pursuant to section 42 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, in respect of the two properties. The appellants served counternotices under section 45 of the Act. These had been signed by the solicitor, but the name of the appropriate landlord had been misstated. The respondents submitted that valid counternotices had not been served, which meant that the appellants had forfeited their right to challenge the respondents’ entitlement to renew their leases.
The judge at first instance observed that the landlord had previously been very careful to distinguish between the different sets of trustees, and held that since the choice of name set out in the counternotices could have been deliberate, the counternotices were invalid. The appellants appealed.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
The section 45 counternotices were not rendered invalid by virtue of the fact that the landlord’s name had been misstated. The court took a common-sense, rather than a strict, approach to the construction of contractual notices, in line with Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd [1997] 1 EGLR 57. It was therefore sufficient for an appellant to show that the meaning of a notice would have been plain to a reasonable recipient. On that basis, the respondents would have been in no doubt that the notices had been given by and on behalf of the person who at the time was the appropriate landlord.
Wayne Clark (instructed by Farrer & Co) appeared for the appellants; Anthony Radevsky (instructed by Wallace & Partners) appeared for the respondents.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
