LANDLORD AND TENANT

Business tenancy - two contradictory notices served in error - landlord not precluded from serving subsequent valid notice opposing grant of new tenancyBarclays Bank Plc v Bee and Another: CA (Lords Justice Aldous and Arden and Mr Justice Wilson): 10 July 2001A lease demised business premises for 15 years from 25 December 1982.

In June 1997 the landlords wrote to the tenants informing them that they intended to carry out certain development in the future and enquiring whether the tenants wished to renew the lease.The tenants acknowledged the letter and suggested a meeting to discuss the renewal of the lease.

There was no further communication until the landlords' solicitors wrote to the tenants on 18 December 1997 stating that they enclosed a notice pursuant to section 25 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 with a copy which they asked to be returned.However, what was in fact enclosed was a notice under section 25 stating that the landlords would oppose an application by the tenants for the grant of a new tenancy but omitting to say on what grounds ('document A'), and another notice stating that the landlords would not oppose such an application ('document B').

The tenants pointed out that the two notices were not the same and sought confirmation that the landlords would not oppose the grant of a new tenancy.The landlords' solicitors replied that it was the landlords' intention to oppose a new tenancy and enclosed a new notice which stated the grounds of opposition to the grant of a new tenancy ('document C').The judge, on appeal from a district judge, held that the landlords were not precluded from opposing the grant of a new tenancy.

The tenants appealed.Simon Berry QC and Stephanie Tozer (instructed by Denton Wilde Sapte) for the tenants.

Mark West (instructed by Tallents Godfrey, Newark) for the landlords.Held, dismissing the appeal, that an informed reasonable recipient of documents A and B would not be able to ascertain the intention of the landlords; that the fact that document A was not effective by virtue of omitting the grounds of opposition did not render document B a valid notice; and that, accordingly, the judge had reached the right conclusion for the right reasons.