Citation
(2002), "Business tenancies", Property Management, Vol. 20 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/pm.2002.11320aab.005
Publisher
:Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2002, MCB UP Limited
Business tenancies
Business tenancies
Barclays Bank plc v. Bee [2001] 29 EG 121
The difficulties in this case arose from the serving by the landlord's solicitors on the tenant of what, to say the least, must have been a rather confusing set of notices purporting to have been served under s.25 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
The landlord's solicitors first sent to the tenant two notices apparently enclosed in the same envelope: one stated that the landlord did not intend to oppose the grant of a new tenancy; the other stated that the landlord would oppose the grant of a new tenancy, but omitted to state the landlord's grounds of objection. Subsequently, the landlord's solicitors wrote to the tenant again, apologising "for the incorrect notice (sic) submitted", stating that the landlord did intend to oppose the grant of a new tenancy, and enclosing a further notice which stated that the landlord would be opposing the grant of a new tenancy on grounds (f) and (g) of s.30(1) of the 1954 Act.
The question which arose, of course, was as to which if any of these notices was valid? At first instance the district judge held that the first notice was valid, and the second invalid, and that in consequence the landlord was unable to object to the granting of a new lease. On appeal by the landlord the court held that the first two notices together created such a degree of confusion as to the true intention of the landlord that they should both be regarded as invalid, with the result that the third notice was effective and the landlord was in fact entitled to oppose the grant of a new tenancy on the grounds therein stated. The Court of Appeal disagreed: the second notice had indeed been invalid but it could not simply be disregarded: it was part of the "factual matrix" in which the first notice had been received by the tenant, and it could not therefore be said that the first notice, though clear enough in itself, unambiguously informed the tenant of the landlord's intentions. Mannai Investment Co. Ltd v. Eagle Star Life Assurance [1997] 1EGLR 57 was among the cases applied.
Sun Life Assurance plc v. Thales Tracs Ltd [2001] 34 EG 100
In this case the question was whether or not the tenant was required to hold a genuine desire to continue in occupation of the holding when serving a s.26 notice on the landlord requesting the grant of a new tenancy. No, said the Court of Appeal: the requirements under s.26 for the tenant to set out the terms of the proposed new lease were merely "performative utterances", in effect a mere statutory formality. The court was not interested in the genuineness or otherwise of the request for a new tenancy, and evidence of the tenant's true state of mind at the time of service of the notice was therefore irrelevant and inadmissible. The court distinguished the earlier House of Lords decision in Betty's Cafes Ltd v. Phillips Furnishing Stores (No. 1) Ltd 1959 AC 20; (1958) 171 EG 131, because that case had been concerned with the truth or otherwise of the landlord's statement of its intention to redevelop under s.30(1)(f) of the 1954 Act, where the truth or otherwise of such a statement was normally one of the central issues to be determined.