Bridgers and Another v Stanford
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 April 1991 |
| Date | 24 April 1991 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Lloyd, Lord Justice Nourse and Lord Justice Ralph Gibson
Landlord and tenant - notice to quit - prescribed form
A notice terminating a tenancy under section 25 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 was not ineffective because it required a tenant to notify the landlord only if he was not willing to give up possession, and thus failed to fulfil all the requirements of section 25(5).
The Court of Appeal so held in allowing an appeal by the landlord, Clive Norman Austin Stanford, against a decision of Judge Michael Cook in Epsom County Court that a notice served on the tenants, Bridgers and Hamptons Residential, both unlimited companies, was invalid.
Section 25 of the 1954 Act provides: "(5) A notice under this section shall not have effect unless it requires the tenant … to notify the landlord in writing whether or not … the tenant will be willing to give up possession of the property comprised in the tenancy."
Mr Nigel Meares for the landlord; Mr David Elvin for the tenants.
LORD JUSTICE LLOYD said that the landlord had given notice on the form prescribed by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II (Notices) Regulations (SI 1983 No 133), which required the tenant to notify the landlord only if he was unwilling to give up possession.
The prescribed form had since been changed by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II (Notices) (Amendment) Regulations (SI 1989 No 1548) and the wording now complied with section 25(5).
On the face of it section 25(5) provided that a notice should not have effect unless the tenant was notified to give either a positive or negative counter-notice.
However, the court was entitled to take a purposive approach in interpreting the section; see the dicta of Lord Diplock in Kammins Ballrooms & Co Ltd v Zenith Investments (Torquay) LtdELR ([1971] AC 850, 880).
The only purpose for the service of a counter-notice by the tenant of his intention to comply with the notice was certainty. It was quite clear that the requirement was a procedural provision for the benefit of the landlord alone as the tenant already knew whether he was willing to give up possession.
The following arguments had been advanced on behalf of the landlord:
As a matter of construction Parliament could not have intended that the validity of a notice should be affected by a landlord's failure to demand a positive counter-notice where the landlord...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pennycook v Shaws (EAL) Ltd
...notwithstanding their letter of October 13, to serve a negative counter notice after that day." 11 In the later case of Bridgers & Hamptons Residential v Stanford (1991) 63 P&CR 18, this court had to consider whether a notice which did not comply with section 25 in several respects was none......
-
R (Morris) v London Rent Assessment Committee and Others
...[1998] 1 WLR 1583; Keepers and Governors of John Lyon Grammar School v Secchi [1999] 3 EGLR 49; Morrow v Nadeem [1986] 1 WLR 1381; Bridgers v Stanford [1991] 2 EGLR 265; Speedwell Estates Limited v Dalziel [2001] EWCA Civ 1277; Burman v Mount Cook Land Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 1712; and Sun ......
-
Supervalu v Irvine
...to “Supervalu” in this part of the notice; it is quite clear to a reasonable recipient reading it. (See Bridgers v Another v Stanford [1991] 2 EGLR 265 CA; Mannai Investment Company Limited v Eagle Star Life Assurance Company Limited [1997] 1 EGLR 57 HL at 68; and, very recently, Trafford M......