Newborough (Lord) v Jones

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLORD JUSTICE RUSSELL,Lord Justice Stamp,Lord Justice Scarman
Judgment Date17 May 1974
Judgment citation (vLex)[1974] EWCA Civ J0517-2
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
Date17 May 1974

[1974] EWCA Civ J0517-2

In The Supreme Court of Judicature

Court of Appeal

Civil Division

On appeal from Judgment of Mr Justice Faulks.

Before:-

Lord Justice Russell,

Lord Justice Stamp and

Lord Justice Scarman

Between:
The Rt. Honourable Lord Newborough
Plaintiff
- and -
John Bryan Jones
Defendant

Mr RICHARD YORKE, Q.C. and Mr G.N.N. HUSKINSON (instructed by Messrs Ward Bowie) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Defendant).

Mr JACK HAMES, Q.C. and Mr R.G. WOOLLEY (instructed by Messrs Lovell, Son & Pitfield, Agents for Messrs Walker, Smith & Way, Chester) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Plaintiff).

LORD JUSTICE RUSSELL
1

This appeal is from a decision of Mr Justice Faulks, under which he ordered the defendant to give possession of a farm of which he had been the tenant in Merionethshire from the plaintiff Lord Newborough.

2

What we were invited to do on behalf of the appellant defendant, the tenant, was under various heads to order a new trial of the matter. There is, however, a point which is raised which, if answered contrary to the contentions of the defendant, is conclusive of the question whether there should he a new trial except under one particular head.

3

The problem concerns the effectiveness of service of a notice to quit the farm on (it is said) the 23rd March, 1971, to expire on the 25th March, 1972. What happened was this: There had been some difficulty in serving notices under the Agricultural Holdings Act on the tenant, and in particular in relation to the notice to quit there had been difficulty in effecting service by recorded delivery. The plaintiff, minded to make it certain that the notice was given, as he said, before the 25th March 1971, went (according to him) on the 23rd March with a witness for the purpose of leaving another copy of the notice to quit at the farmhouse. To this is relevant section 92 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, which provides this: "Any notice … under this Act shall be duly given to or served on the person to or on whom it is to be given or served if it is delivered to him, or left at his proper address, or sent to him by post in a registered letter". The question is whether, on the assumption that the story of the tenant and his wife (which the learned Judge did not accept below) was correct, it is a case in which the notice to quit was left at his, the tenant's, proper address.

4

Now, there is no doubt that the farmhouse was the tenant's proper address for the purpose of the section. What in fact happened was that the plaintiff with his witness went there, as I say, with a copy of the notice to quit in an envelope, knocked at the house door, got no answer, and slipped the envelope under the bottom of the side or back door, which was the door which was mostly used by the tenant farmer and his family. The front door was not the one that the farmer was accustomed to use, though he said that for the convenience of the postman, in fact the postman used to use the front door by sliding letters underneath the door. There was not a slit or letter-box of any kind on either door.

5

Now, according to the evidence of the farmer and his wife, this envelope and its contents did not come to the attention of the farmer or his wife until some date in August, 1971. On that occasion, according to their evidence, the wife was renewing some linoleum on the floor just inside the side or back door and took up some of the old linoleum, whereupon the envelope which, according to their version, had been under the linoleum ever since it was slipped under the door by the plaintiff was revealed.

6

Now, supposing that to be correct, that when the plaintiff slipped the envelope under the door it in fact went under the linoleum which was on the other side of the door — unknown, of course, to the plaintiff. It is argued on behalf of the plaintiff that there are the words of the section, that the notice was duly served because it was left at the tenant's proper address; and certainly prima facie what happened came within those words that I have quoted. It is however argued on behalf of the tenant that where you have asort of 1 in 100...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Birmingham City Council v Drew Bravington
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 22 de março de 2023
    ...Notice in the way described amount to “leaving” it at 9 Clunbury Road? 29 Mr Manning relied in this connection on Lord Newborough v Jones [1975] 1 Ch 90. The issue there was whether a notice to quit had been served in accordance with section 92 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948, which p......
  • Newcastle Upon Tyne NHS Foundation Trust v Sandi Haywood
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 17 de março de 2017
    ...the letter box or slipping it under the door is not a proper way of ensuring that it reached its intended destination: compare Lord Newborough v Jones [1975] Ch 90 (notice to quit validly served by being slipped under the door even though it slid under the lino and never came to the tenant......
  • Blunden v Frogmore Investments Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 30 de abril de 2002
    ...to be unknown to the person giving the notice, and difficult for the court to ascertain. 29 These difficulties are illustrated by Newborough v Jones [1975] Ch 90, the earliest of the cases cited to this court. An agricultural tenant had refused to accept a notice to quit sent by recorded de......
  • Warborough Investments Ltd v Central Midland Estates Ltd and Another
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 14 de junho de 2006
    ...who, to the knowledge of the parties, is a mere visitor to the premises and happens at the moment to be leaving the house." 70 In Lord Newborough v Jones [1975] Chancery 90, the issue arose in relation to section 92(1) of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948. That section provided that: "Any ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT