Edward Peters & Tamsin Cox discuss inadvertent acceptance, disputed boundaries & consultation requirements
The importance of ensuring that notices required both by contract and under statute are correctly drafted and served is well known to property practitioners, since the consequences of a failed attempt to give notice can be extremely damaging. The recent decision of Peter Smith J in MW Trustees Limited v Telular Corporation [2011] EWHC 104 (Ch), [2011] All ER (D) 99 (Feb), however, highlights that the response of the recipient of such a notice can assume equal importance.
The claimant landlords (M) sought a declaration that the defendant tenant (T) had failed properly to exercise a break clause in its lease. The clause could be exercised by the tenant giving to the landlord not less than six months’ written notice. There was also a clause prescribing specific methods of service, and indicating that a notice would be valid only if those methods were used.
T initially sent a notice in accordance with those service provisions, but it was addressed to and served on M’s predecessor in title,
