Landlord and Tenant Act 1954–Section 25 notice in old form–‘Substantially like’ new form–Case governed by result of recent appeal–Order for possession granted
This was an
appeal by Mr Peter George Snook, of South Parade, Southsea, Hampshire, from a
judgment of Judge McLennan at Portsmouth County Court on December 5 1973
dismissing his claim for possession of shop premises at 118 Highland Road,
Southsea, occupied by the respondents, Mr Kevin Donald Schofield and his wife,
Mrs Linda Susan Schofield.
Mr M Driscoll
(instructed by Hubert Way, Malpas & Stanley, of Portsmouth) appeared for
the appellant, and Mr N Huskinson (instructed by Barlow, Lyde & Gilbert,
agents for Warner, Goodman & Co, of Portsmouth) represented the
respondents.
Giving
judgment, LORD EDMUND-DAVIES said that the premises were used for business
purposes and fell within the ambit of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act
1954. The appellant served notice under section 25 of the Act to terminate the
respondents’ tenancy. The section provided by subsection (1) that such notice
should be ‘in the prescribed form,’ and by subsection (5) that it should not
have effect unless it required the tenant within two months after the giving of
the notice to notify the landlord whether or not, at the date of termination,
he would be willing to give up possession of the property comprised in the
tenancy. The Landlord and Tenant (Notices) Regulations 1957 prescribed a form
of notice (Form 7) the relevant part of which read: ‘You [the tenant] are
required within two months after receiving this notice to notify me in writing
whether or not you will be willing to give up possession of the premises on
that date.’ This was the form that was
served by the appellant. The 1957 regulations had however been superseded by
regulations made in 1969, and these prescribed a form of notice the relevant
part of which read: ‘You are required within two months after the giving of
this notice. . . .’ The submission made
on behalf of the tenants in the present case was that the section 25 notice
served was not in a form like the prescribed notice, and the county court judge
upheld this argument, holding that the old form was not substantially to the
same effect as the form of 1969. After the appeal had been set down and was
about to be heard, precisely the same point was dealt with by the Court of
Appeal in Sun Alliance & London Assurance Co Ltd v Hayman,
judgment in which was delivered on October 31 1974 [see 233 EG 927, [1975] 1
EGLR 63]. Giving judgment on behalf of the majority, Stephenson LJ said that on
the true construction of the old form, ‘there was no material departure from
the statute and no material difference from the new form. . . . It described
the same act from the landlord’s and tenant’s point of view. The giving and
receiving of the notice are two aspects of the same action and were
simultaneous.’ The effect of that
judgment was that the section 25 notice which was there given and which was
similar to the notice given in the present case, was substantially to the same
effect as the notice prescribed under the current regulations; indeed, counsel
were agreed that that was the result and that the decision in the Sun
Alliance case governed the outcome of the present appeal. There must be an
order accordingly.
BUCKLEY LJ and
ORMROD LJ agreed. The appeal was allowed and the landlord granted an order for
possession within 28 days. He was awarded the costs of the county court
hearing, but did not seek the costs of the appeal.