Schnabel v Allard
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Master Of The Rolls,Lord Justice Diplock |
| Judgment Date | 25 October 1966 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1966] EWCA Civ J1025-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 25 October 1966 |
[1966] EWCA Civ J1025-2
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
From His Honour Judge Andrew Marylebone County Court
The Master Of The Rolls
(Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Dangkwerts and
Lord Justice Diplock
Mr R. Shulman (instructed by Messrs Nairnsey Fisher & Co.) appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.
Mr D. Wheatiey (instructed by Messrs Loxdales) appeared as Counsel for the Respondent.
This case has given rise to a point of considerable interest. Mr Schnabel owned a house, 71 Cornwall Crescent. In May 1965 he let a furnished flat consisting of two rooms on the first floor to Mr or Mrs Allard at a rent of £7 a week. The rent book says clearly: "Date of tenancy: 8th May, 1965". The 8th May, it is material to notice, was a Saturday. The right inference is that it was a weekly tenancy from Saturday to Saturday. The rent was reduced after a few weeks to £6 a week. Then in December 1965 there was a fire in one of the rooms. Afterwards Mr and Mrs Allard only had one room. They were charged a rent of £3 a week. The landlord said that because of their negligence, the Insurance Company refused to insure the house. So he determined to give notice to quit. He went to a firm of Fekete & Co., who describe themselves as "international law consultants". On behalf of the landlord they gave a notice to quit dated 3rd March, 1966, which was a Thursday, in these terms: "On behalf of our client, Mr E. Schnabel, 75, Gloucester Road, W.7, your landlord, we hereby give you this final notice to quit and deliver up possession of the first floor two-room and shared kitchen furnished flat of 71 Cornwall Crescent, W.11, which you hold as tenant thereof, on the day of 1st of April, 1966. The reason of the notice: the landlord reduced your rent because you promised to quit; moreover the Insurance Company refused to insure the house, holding your negligence of the fire which took place in your flat in 27th of December, 1965".
The 3rd March was a Thursday. The notice was presumably served on Friday, 4th March. The 1st April was a Friday. The tenant did not go out on the 1st April. A few days later the landlord took out a summons in the County Court for possession. The parties went in person before that very experienced County Court Judge, Judge Andrew. The landlord produced the notice to quit dated 3rd March, 1966, expiring on 1st April,which was a Friday. Mrs Allard went into the box and said a "I have the notice to quit", and apparently produced it to the Judge. The Judge held that it was a good notice and ordered possession in four weeks.
Afterwards Mrs Allard went to a legal advice centre. As a result, an appeal has been brought. It has been well argued before us. The question is whether this notice to quit is good. It must be good both at common law and by statute.
Take first the common law. It was a weekly tenancy, Saturday to Saturday. In such a case, it has been decided by this Court in Crate v. Miller. 1947 King's Bench, p. 946, that a notice to quit which expires either on a Friday or a Saturday is a good notice. It must of course be long enough. It must give at least a week's notice, i.e. one Friday till the next Friday or one Saturday till the next Saturday. But so long as the length is right, the day of expiry can be either the Friday or the Saturday. So if this notice was received by the tenant on Friday, 4th March to quit on Friday, 1st April, it was at common law a good notice to determine the tenancy.
Take next the statute. The Rent Act 1937 says: "No notice by a landlord or a tenant to quit any premises let…. as a dwelling shall be valid unless it is given not less than four weeks before the date on which it is to take effect". What is the effect of the words "not less than four weeks"? We have been referred to a decision of the Divisional Court of Thompson v. Stimpaon, 1961, 1 Queen's Bench, p. 195. This was an almost identical case. The notice there was given on Friday, 15th May, 1959, and gave four weeks' notice to vacate and give up possession on Friday, 12th June, 1959. The Divisional Court held that that notice was bad. They referred to cases on other statutes, such as Regina v. Long, 1960, 1 Queen's Bench, p. 681 and Re Hector Whaling, 1936 Chancery, p. 208, in which such words as "clear days" or "not less than" so many days were held to exclude both days, i.e. both the day ofgiving and also the day of receiving the notice. I must say, however, that I think those cases have no application to this statute. The general rule as to notices, at any rate as between landlord and tenant, is that you exclude only one of the days and not both of them. Take the everyday periodic tenancies. In a weekly Saturday tenancy a notice to quit is good if given on one Saturday to expire on the following Saturdays or if it is given on a Friday to expire on the following Friday, I think that in this Rent Act 1957 we should apply the ordinary landlord and tenant reckoning of periodic notices. A period of "not less than four weeks" is satisfied by being given on one day to expire that day four weeks, e.g. on a Friday to expire on Friday four weeks.
It follows that I am unable to agree with the decision of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Forster v Jododex Aust Pty Ltd
-
Nedcor Bank Ltd v the Master and Others
...264 (CA) Maharaj v Rampersad 1964 (4) SA 638 (A) Nkisimane and Others v Sanlam Insurance Co Ltd 1978 (2) SA 430 (A) D Schabel v Allard [1967] 1 QB 627 (CA) Weenen Transitional Local Council v Van Dyk 2000 (3) SA 435 (N) Zouch v Empsey 4 B & ALD 522. Cur adv vult. E Postea (September 27). Ju......
-
Johnson v. Halifax (City) and Dominix, (1975) 12 N.S.R.(2d) 547 (CA)
...195 (Q.B.D.), not folld. [para. 7] & folld. [para. 63]. R. v. Long, [1959] 3 All E.R. 560, folld. [para. 8]. Schnabel v. Allard, [1966] 3 All E.R. 816, folld. [para. In re Railway Sleepers Supply Company (1885), L.R. 29 Ch.D. 204, dist. [para. 11] & folld. [para. 66]. R. v. Justices......
-
Carapanayoti & Company Ltd v Comptoir Commercial Andre & Cie. S.A.
...to quit expiring on the periodic day, e. g., a week's notice given on one Saturday to expire on the next Saturday, and so forth: see Schnabel v. Allan (1967) 1 Q. B. 627. Save for these exceptions, the general rule is that, between the two events there must be so many clear days. 22 This ca......