Service Of Break Notices / Surrender
Adam Rosenthal acted for the successful tenants in the recent case of Levett-Dunn v NHS Property Services Limited [2016] EWHC 943 (Ch), in which it was held that a tenant’s break notice was properly served when delivered to premises named in the lease as the address of the landlord, notwithstanding that by the time of service of the break notice, one of the four joint landlords had ceased to be a landlord (the reversion being vested in the three remaining joint landlords) and the remaining landlords were no longer connected with the premises at the stated address.
The case considers the meaning of the “last known” place of abode or business under section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (which was incorporated into the service provision in the lease). The fact that the landlords, collectively, were described as being “of” the stated address, effectively constituted that the landlords’ place of business for the purpose of receiving notices under the lease, unless and until the tenant became aware that it had ceased to be the landlord’s address. An alternative argument was rejected by the Court, based on section 23(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 (by which service on a former landlord is good service unless the tenant had been notified that the reversion had become vested in a new landlord). It was held that this subsection, like section 23(1), applies only to notices served under the 1927 Act and is not of general application.
The tenant’s alternative argument that the lease was subsequently surrendered by operation of law was also accepted. The surrender occurred when the landlord granted a new short-term lease of the premises to a third party.
The judgment can be accessed here
Back to news listing
