Property Notices: Validity and Service

Commentary

SOURCE CURRENCY
3rd Edition, February 2021

Property Notices: Validity and Service contains a clear and practical guide to the legal principles governing whether a property notice is valid and whether it has been properly served. The importance of those principles for property lawyers cannot be over-stated: in the field of property law, rights are frequently exercised by the service of a notice and, for the party that has attempted to serve a notice (and perhaps its lawyers), the consequences of a finding that a notice is invalid may be disastrous.

Property Notices: Validity and Service is the only work dedicated to this core area of practice and it is essential reading for all property lawyers.

The 3rd edition is updated to, amongst other aspects, include coverage of the following cases:

  • The Court of Appeal (in Osman v Natt [2015] 1 WLR 1536 and Elim Court RTM Co Ltd v Avon Freeholds Ltd [2018] QB 571) explained when non-compliance with a requirement invalidates statutory property notice.

  • In Pease v Carter [2020] 1 WLR 1439 the Court of Appeal held that the misidentification of the date in a “section 8 notice” was capable of being “corrected” by the process of interpretation.

  • In Siemens Hearing Instruments Ltd v Friends Life Ltd [2014] 2 P&CR 5 the Court of Appeal held that a break notice is invalidated by a trivial non-compliance with a pointless requirement.

  • In ENER-G Holdings Plc v Hornell [2013] 1 All ER (Comm) 1162 and Goulandris v Knight [2018] 1 WLR 3345 the Court of Appeal explained how to distinguish permissive from exhaustive notice provisions.

  • In Haywood v Newcastle upon Tyne NHS Trust [2018] 1 WLR 2073 the Supreme Court held that a notice is not “served” by being delivered to the recipient’s home address whilst she was on holiday.

  • In Oldham MBC v Tanna [2017] 1 WLR 1970 the Court of Appeal held that, as a general rule, a person’s address as it appears in the proprietorship register at HM Land Register is his “last known” address.

  • In UKI (Kingsway) Ltd v Westminster CC [2019] 1 WLR 104 the Supreme Court held that a notice could be “served” indirectly.

  • Contributors

    Tom Weekes QC, Landmark Chambers  Author