Gateway Housing Association v Personal Representatives of Ali & Anor

Where section 18 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1994 applies, the notice addressed to the personal representatives and sent to the deceased’s last known residence or business is the operative document. The copy sent to the Public Trustee is not a separate notice. Its service retrospectively validates the operative notice, but must occur before that notice expires. The copy neither resets nor independently determines the expiry date. This construction applies to notices affecting land generally and avoids uncertain or impractical consequences.

Gateway, the landlord, granted a joint assured tenancy to Mohammed Nuruj Ali and his wife. Following his wife’s death, Mr Ali became the sole tenant. Mr Ali later died before a grant of representation had been obtained. Gateway served a notice to quit at the property addressed to his personal representatives and sent a copy to the Public Trustee.

The County Court dismissed Gateway’s possession claim, following Pavey v London Borough of Hackney, because the notice and copy appeared to have different expiry dates. The appeal concerned the proper construction of section 18, including which document was operative, the effect and timing of service on the Public Trustee, and whether the tenancy agreement’s service clause affected the result.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on Ground 3, rejected Grounds 2 and 4, and remitted the case for determination of the remaining defences.

1. Ground 1. Gateway’s argument based on the tenancy agreement’s service clause could not succeed on the facts. Mr Ali had died intestate and, before a grant of administration, there were no personal representatives in whom the tenancy had vested. The court therefore said no more about that ground.
2. The operative document. Section 18(1) requires service of the notice at the deceased’s last known residence or business and service of a copy on the Public Trustee. The notice served under section 18(1)(a) is the operative document. The copy required by section 18(1)(b) is not an independent, self-standing notice. The terms of the operative notice govern the date on which the tenancy is determined.
3. Timing and effect of the copy. Service of the copy retrospectively validates service of the operative notice, but it must take place before the operative notice expires. Parliament could not have intended validation to remain possible indefinitely until a grant of representation, or to revive a notice which had already expired. The same approach applies because section 18 concerns all notices affecting land, not only notices to quit.
4. Clarity. The court rejected the analysis in Pavey v London Borough of Hackney (unreported) 21 November 2017 that the notice and copy had equal contractual effect and had to produce the same expiry date. The statutory register records the date of entry, not receipt of the copy. The copy has an informative and subsidiary function, while the operative notice determines the tenancy.

The County Court’s dismissal order was set aside. The claim was remitted for final determination, particularly of the defences other than validity of the notice to quit. Permission for a further appeal was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 22 October 2020, allowed the appeal on Ground 3, set aside the County Court’s dismissal order, and remitted the claim for determination of the remaining defences.
• Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court: Deputy District Judge Smith dismissed Gateway’s possession claim because the notice and copy appeared to have different expiry dates.