Source:	All England Reporter
Publisher Citation:	[2002] All ER (D) 174 (May)
Court:	Chancery Division
Judge:	Patten J
Representation	Mark Loveday (instructed by Vizard Oldham) for the claimant.
	Charles King (instructed by Freeman Box) for the defendant.
	Paul Clark (instructed by Plexus Law) for the Pt 20 defendant.
Judgment Dates:	13 May 2002

Catchwords

Practice - Service - Service by post - Deemed service - Defendant sending counter notice by recorded delivery following service on her of rent review notice by claimant landlord - Landlord receiving counter notice outside period for service under rent review provisions of lease - Judge ruling that valid counter notice not served within period permitted by lease - Whether judge erring in holding that counter notice had not been served until date of actual receipt - s 196(4).

The Case

In proceedings arising out of the delivery of a counter notice outside the time period specified in the rent review provisions of a lease, the court ruled that the application of s196(4) of the Law of Property Act, as amended by the should have led the court to conclude that delivery in the ordinary course of post should have been presumed to have taken place and therefore the counter notice must be held to have been served in time.

Practice Areas

• Company Commercial
• Dispute Resolution
• Personal Injury
• Property

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.

Lexis^®Library

• The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
• Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
• Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary