What happens if a Notice is defective?

The Court of Appeal looks set to resolve the diverging approaches by the Courts as to the consequences that flow from a failure to comply with a statutory or contractual requirement about the form of a notice.
The case which is the subject of the appeal was concerned with the statutory requirements of s13 Leasehold Reform and Urban Development Act 1993. The tenants had failed to identify in the notice one of the flats in the block. The Tenants contended unsuccessfully that the flat was not a flat for the purpose of the Act so it did not need to be included in the notice. Having lost on that point the decision for the Court was the effect of the failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of section 13.
Our clients successfully argued, by reference to Cadogan v Morris [1999] 1 EGLR 59 amongst other cases, that the failure was fatal and the notice was invalid. Indeed Morgan J had already said as much in Sinclair Gardens v Poets Chase [2008] 1 WLR 768. That was also a case that turned on section 13 of 1993 Act. In the absence of a relevant statutory saving provision a non compliant notice could not be saved and was invalid.
However, the Appellants argue for a different approach relying on the decision in Siemens Hearing Instruments Ltd v Friends Life Limited [2013] EWHC B15 (Ch). In that case, Mr N Strauss QC had to determine the effect of a failure to comply with a contractual notice required to operate a break clause. He concluded that the same principles apply equally to contractual and statutory notices and that where the Statute or contract provides that a non-compliant notice will be invalid or effective that is the end of the matter. In contrast with Poets Chase, however, he said that where the draftsman has not provided, either way, for the consequence of non compliance, “one may reasonably assume that this is deliberate, and that it has been left to the court to decide”
Following permission given by Lewison LJ, therefore, the apparently divergent approach between these 2 cases, and the whole question of failure to comply with the statutory requirements for notices, looks set now to be revisited by a full Court of Appeal in June 2014.
Clifford Tibber is a member of the Anthony Gold property disputes team and is experienced in all types of residential and commercial leasehold disputes.
Please note
The information on the Anthony Gold website is for general information only and reflects the position at the date of publication. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such. It is provided without any representations or warranties, expressed or implied.
Speak to a member of the team
Our Latest Housing & Property Disputes Insights
- February 13, 2025
RRO Reforms under the new Renters’ Rights Bill
- January 10, 2025
The Renters’ Rights Bill Explained: Key Provisions and Implications for Renters and Landlords
- December 23, 2024
Court of Appeal Decision in Martyna Switaj v Adrian McClenaghan – Can a valid section 21 notice be served if prohibited fees under the Tenant Fees Act 2019 have been taken prior to 1 June 2019?
- November 20, 2024
Trading Standards Penalty for Novation Fee Quashed on Appeal
- October 10, 2024
Terminating Licences to Occupy Residential Property: A Legal Guide
- September 19, 2024
Will purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA) sector be exempt from the Renters’ Rights Bill?
Latest Articles
View allGuide: March 18, 2025
Contact us today
"*" indicates required fields
Contact the commercial
& civil Dispute team today
"*" indicates required fields
Contact the Conveyancing team today
Contact the Conveyancing team today
Contact the Wills, Trusts
& Estates team today
Contact the Court of
Protection team today
Contact the Employment Law team today
Contact the Clinical Negligence team today
Contact the Family & Relationships team today
Contact the Personal Injury Claims team today
Contact the leasehold & Freehold team today
Contact the Corporate & Commercial team today
Contact the housing & disputes team
"*" indicates required fields