Green v Westleigh Properties Limits

A purchase notice under section 12 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 must be in writing, served on the new landlord within time, and give adequate notice that the qualifying tenants require the landlord’s interest to be transferred to a nominated person. The notice is construed objectively and in context. Errors do not necessarily invalidate it if a reasonable recipient would have no real doubt about its intended effect. Mandatory requirements must be met, but directory requirements may be satisfied where information is readily ascertainable.

The appellant, a leaseholder, sought to exercise statutory rights to acquire the landlord’s reversion under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. HHJ Newton had held that no valid purchase notice was served within time and that the court had no power to extend the period.

The High Court heard an appeal from that decision and a renewed application for permission to appeal against earlier orders concerning sums due under the lease and costs. The central issue was whether correspondence sent in June and August 2005 constituted a valid and timely section 12 notice.

1. Appeal allowed. The notice sent on 10 June 2005 was deemed served on Westleigh by 13 June 2005 under section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978. In the alternative, a copy sent on 5 August was within the time ordered by HHJ Newton.
2. A section 12 notice must be in writing, be served on the new landlord in time, and give adequate notice that the qualifying tenants require the landlord’s interest to be transferred to a nominated person.
3. Applying Mannai and Kay Green v Twinsectra [1996] 1 WLR 1587, validity is assessed objectively and in the relevant context. The question is whether a reasonable recipient could be left in real doubt about the right being exercised.
4. The envelope, notice, references to the earlier order and transfer, and enclosed cheque showed objectively that the notice was intended for Westleigh and sought transfer of its freehold interest. The erroneous date, statutory description and section reference did not invalidate it.
5. The requirement to specify tenants’ addresses under section 54(2) was directory. The addresses appeared in the heading or were readily ascertainable. No prescribed form was required, and further terms could be considered under section 12(6).
6. The renewed application for permission to appeal against the judgment on the claim and the costs order was refused. It was unnecessary to determine the power to extend time.

• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): Appeal from HHJ Newton’s decision dated 30 November 2005 allowed. The renewed application for permission to appeal against the decisions of 11 May 2005 was refused.
• County Court: HHJ Newton held that no valid section 12 notice was served within time and that the court had no power to extend the time.