The mistake may not be so bad after all
There was a time when a party to a lease could cheerfully disregard a notice from the other side after spotting that it had specified a period or date that failed to correspond with what was legally required.
Today, in the wake of the House of Lords decision in Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd [1997] 1 EGLR 57, the recipient cannot afford to be so hasty. A reading of the notice as a whole may, as happened in Trafford Metropolitain Borough Council v Total Fitness UK Ltd [2002] 44 EG 169 (CS), lead to the conclusion that a reasonable recipient would have understood that the intended period or date was indeed the one prescribed by the lease or statute, as the case may be: see Sandi Murdoch’s commentary in Notice the similarity? Estates Gazette 8 March 2003, p162.
Given the range of notices that may be open to challenge, and the multitude of ways in which drafting slip-ups may occur, it is hardly surprising that commentators are struggling to detect some kind of pattern in the ever-growing body of post-Mannai case law: see the series of articles contributed by Sandi Murdoch: Confuse the issue Estates Gazette 2 March 2002, p217, Not absolutely evident Estates Gazette 9 March 2002, p154 and Lead us not into error Estates Gazette 16 March 2002, p151.
Related items:
- For further guidance, see Notices: when is a defect not a defect by Jonathan Gaunt QC and Nicholas Cheffings.
- For a consideration of Proctor & Gamble Technical Centres Ltd v Brixton Estates plc [2003] EWHC 2835 (Ch); [2003] 31 EG 69 (where a notice wrongly identified the landlord), see Sandi Murdoch’s Don’t gamble with words Estates Gazette 7 June 2003, p133.
The mistake may not be so bad after all
There was a time when a party to a lease could cheerfully disregard a notice from the other side after spotting that it had specified a period or date that failed to correspond with what was legally required.
Today, in the wake of the House of Lords decision in Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd [1997] 1 EGLR 57, the recipient cannot afford to be so hasty. A reading of the notice as a whole may, as happened in Trafford Metropolitain Borough Council v Total Fitness UK Ltd [2002] 44 EG 169 (CS), lead to the conclusion that a reasonable recipient would have understood that the intended period or date was indeed the one prescribed by the lease or statute, as the case may be: see Sandi Murdoch’s commentary in Notice the similarity? Estates Gazette 8 March 2003, p162.
Given the range of notices that may be open to challenge, and the multitude of ways in which drafting slip-ups may occur, it is hardly surprising that commentators are struggling to detect some kind of pattern in the ever-growing body of post-Mannai case law: see the series of articles contributed by Sandi Murdoch: Confuse the issue Estates Gazette 2 March 2002, p217, Not absolutely evident Estates Gazette 9 March 2002, p154 and Lead us not into error Estates Gazette 16 March 2002, p151.
Related items:
For further guidance, see Notices: when is a defect not a defect by Jonathan Gaunt QC and Nicholas Cheffings.
For a consideration of Proctor & Gamble Technical Centres Ltd v Brixton Estates plc [2003] EWHC 2835 (Ch); [2003] 31 EG 69 (where a notice wrongly identified the landlord), see Sandi Murdoch’s Don’t gamble with words Estates Gazette 7 June 2003, p133.
