CA Webber (Transport) Ltd v Railtrack plc
Peter Gibson and Longmore LJJ
Landlord serving notices on tenant by post — Whether date of service is date of posting or date of delivery — Appeal dismissed
The respondent landlord served notices, under section 25 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, on the appellant tenant. The letters were sent by recorded delivery on 20 July 2001 and arrived at the appellant’s premises on 23 July 2001. Since the termination date in the notices was 22 January 2002 the appellant contented that they were invalid because they had been delivered less than six months before the termination date. The respondent maintained that the date of posting effected service, and the notices had therefore been validly served more than six months prior to the termination date. At first instance, the recorder found for the respondent, and the appellant appealed.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
Landlord serving notices on tenant by post — Whether date of service is date of posting or date of delivery — Appeal dismissed
The respondent landlord served notices, under section 25 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, on the appellant tenant. The letters were sent by recorded delivery on 20 July 2001 and arrived at the appellant’s premises on 23 July 2001. Since the termination date in the notices was 22 January 2002 the appellant contented that they were invalid because they had been delivered less than six months before the termination date. The respondent maintained that the date of posting effected service, and the notices had therefore been validly served more than six months prior to the termination date. At first instance, the recorder found for the respondent, and the appellant appealed.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
Extensive authority on the point supported the recorder’s finding and had been discussed at length in the case of Beanby Estates v Egg Stores (Stamford Hill) The Times 15 May 2003, in which the judge gave cogent reasons for deeming that service was held to be at the point of posting. The court was bound by the ratio in Galinski v McHugh [1989] 05 EGLR 89, where it had been made clear that the purpose of section 23 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 was not to protect the addressee but to assist the server of the notice. It was true that the risk of non-receipt was put upon the addressee, but it provided certainty for the server. That was a proportionate and necessary means to protect the interests of the parties, and, as such, was not unjust. As a result, the appellant’s submissions as to the effect of the Human Rights legislation on section 25 of the 1954 Act were unfounded.
Anthony Tanney (instructed by William Heath & Co) appeared for the appellant; Romie Tager QC and Justin Kitson (instructed by Thomas Eggar Church Adams) appeared for the respondent.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
