Shaw v Davis

A notice to quit is invalid unless its intended effect would be clear to the recipient on an objective reading. It must identify the notice period and, importantly, the date on which the notice is to expire. A notice which instead merely complains of breaches and threatens court proceedings cannot terminate the tenancy. Questions about service therefore become irrelevant where the notice is substantively invalid. On an application for permission to appeal and to adduce new evidence, evidence which was available at trial or adds nothing material will not justify permission.

The defendant landlord applied for an extension of time, permission to appeal and permission to adduce new evidence against an order of the Pontefract County Court dated 8 June 2000. The county court had found him guilty of contempt for breaching an injunction protecting the claimant tenant’s occupation and had imposed a fine, imprisonment in default and costs orders.

The proposed appeal challenged the findings concerning exclusion from the premises and alleged service of a notice to quit dated 20 June 1999. The central issues were whether the new evidence was admissible and whether the notice had effectively terminated the claimant’s lawful occupation.

1. Applications refused. The evidence concerning the changing of the locks was confused, but the defendant and his adviser had accepted that the claimant was excluded after a peremptory seven-day notice. The county court judge had correctly understood the essential evidence and had been entitled to find the contempt proved to the criminal standard.
2. The proposed new evidence did not justify permission. One proposed witness had not provided a new statement and the other witnesses were available at the hearing. Their evidence added nothing significant, apart from an unconvincing identification of the person to whom the notice was allegedly handed.
3. The notice dated 20 June 1999 could not have been a valid notice to quit. It stated neither the length of notice nor the date on which the notice was to expire. Applying the fundamental rule reaffirmed in Mannai Investments v Eagle Star [1997] AC 749, the recipient would not have been in objective doubt about its intended effect. The document was more akin to a notice of proceedings for forfeiture.
4. Any issue under section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 concerning service was consequently irrelevant. The notice also appeared not to comply with Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 concerning termination of business tenancies.
5. An appeal would therefore be hopeless, with or without the proposed new evidence. Permission to appeal was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): refused permission to appeal from the Pontefract County Court order of 8 June 2000.
• Pontefract County Court: found the defendant guilty of contempt for breaching the injunction, imposed a fine and costs, and directed supervised recovery of the claimant’s property.