Tenant applying to renew lease - landlord's counter-notice incorrectly stating name of landlord - counter-notice valid

Lay and Others v Ackerman and Another: CA (Lady Justice Arden and Lord Justice Neuberger): 4 March 2004

The defendants were tenants of property which was part of the Portman Estate in central London.

Although the identity of the legal owner of the properties on the estate was somewhat unclear, it would have been clear to the tenants that the property was part of the Portman Estate, managed from 38 Seymour Street.

On 26 September 2001, the tenants served a notice to exercise the right to acquire a new lease, pursuant to section 42 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 in respect of the property.

The notice was addressed to 'the landlord, the trustees of the Portman Family Settled Estates of 38 Seymour Street London W1'.

The landlord's counter-notice addressed to the tenants, served pursuant to section 45 of the Act in respect of the property and accompanied by a short covering letter, was stated to be from the 'Trustees of the Portman Collateral Settlements'.

It was common ground that no such body existed.

Judge Cowell at the London County Court held that the counter-notice served on the tenants was invalid.

The landlord appealed.

Wayne Clark (instructed by Farrer & Co) for the landlords; Anthony Radevsky (instructed by Wallace & Partners) for the tenants.

Held, allowing the appeal, that a counter-notice under section 45 would not be invalid simply because it left the tenant in doubt as to the identity of his landlord; that the tenant was sufficiently protected in circumstances where a reasonable person in the position of the tenants could be in no doubt but that the counter-notice was served by or on behalf of the landlord; that in such a case, the tenant would ex hypothesi know that the landlord had served the counter-notice, and was therefore responsible for identifying 'the landlord' in the counter-notice and that, accordingly, the counter-notice was valid.