Thomas v. Turner, a recent Court of Appeal decision, further defined whether or not a legal notice containing errors remains valid. Even if delivered to the correct address, a notice that is addressed to the wrong individual may not be valid.
Parties to contracts and leases have traditionally relied on the "reasonable recipient" test outlined in Mannai Investment Co -v- Eagle Star Life Assurance to preserve notices that contain an error. The key question is whether a recipient of the notice would reasonably grasp its intent despite the error. The notice will be deemed valid if the reasonable recipient would understand it. This could be the case even if, for instance, a notice contains an inaccuracy regarding a crucial date.
Recently, Thomas v. Turner examined the limitations of this test. Mr. Thomas had an oral tenancy of Mr Turner’s land. Without informing his landlord, he assigned his tenancy to a business whose registered office was located at his residence and for which he served as the sole shareholder and director.
Mr Turner later served a notice to end the tenancy, addressed to Mr Thomas. As the notice was addressed to him, rather than the company he had assigned the tenancy to, Mr Thomas argued the notice was not valid. Mr Turned argued that the reasonable recipient would know that he was trying to terminate the tenancy.
The Court of Appeal held that the notice was not valid. A notice which was addressed to Mr Thomas and which repeatedly referred to him as the tenant could not be understood by the reasonable recipient as a notice addressed to the company.
A notice to quit has to be given to the actual tenant.
The ruling emphasises the significance of verifying the tenant before serving a notice. Landlords should make sure that tenancies identify the tenant with certainty.
We strongly recommend talking to a member of our property team by calling 01484 821500, or fill out an online enquiry form before serving any notices so that potential issues can be identified and addressed.