Skinns v Greenwood

For the purposes of the proviso to section 3(1) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, the requirement that the notice length is not more than three months concerns the contractual notice period required to determine the tenancy. It does not require the lease to prescribe a maximum period, or prevent a party voluntarily giving longer notice. The landlord bears the burden of showing that the proviso applies. A lease permitting termination by one month’s notice after the tenant’s death, while prohibiting assignment and subletting of the whole, falls within the proviso.

The tenant appealed from Hughes J’s decision allowing the landlord’s appeal from Judge Brunning in the Nottingham County Court. The dispute concerned the tenant’s statutory right to acquire the freehold under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

The lease was for 90 years and allowed either party, after the death of the last surviving tenant, to require the term to cease on not less than one month’s notice. The central issue was whether this satisfied the proviso’s requirement that the notice length be not more than three months.

1. Appeal dismissed. The landlord bore the burden of establishing that the proviso to section 3(1) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 applied.
2. The proviso was an integral part of the statutory scheme. It had to be given effect alongside Parliament’s general intention to enable qualifying tenants to acquire the freehold.
3. “The length of the notice is not more than three months” referred to the contractual period required for a notice to determine the tenancy once given. It did not impose a maximum period which a party might voluntarily allow, or require the lease to state that notice could never run for more than three months.
4. Proma Ltd v Curtis [1989] 59 P and CR 242, at 245, illustrated the mischief addressed by paragraph (b): a lengthy required notice could leave a tenant effectively locked into a tenancy while being denied enfranchisement.
5. The lease satisfied the proviso. The appeal was dismissed with costs, subject to detailed assessment because both parties were legally aided.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Skinns v Greenwood [2002] EWCA Civ 424. Appeal dismissed with costs.
• High Court: Hughes J allowed the landlord’s appeal from Judge Brunning.
• Nottingham County Court: Judge Brunning found that the landlord had not shown that the proviso excluded the tenancy from the definition of a long tenancy.