Friends Life Ltd v Siemens Hearing Instruments Ltd
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- SIR TIMOTHY LLOYD
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case examined whether a tenant's break notice was valid despite not including required wording under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The court held that strict compliance with the lease terms was necessary, making the tenant's notice invalid, and thus reversed the lower court's decision.
Judgment
Lord Justice Lewison:
The issue
The issue on this appeal is this. A lease contained a tenant’s break clause. The break clause said that any notice given by the tenant exercising the right to break “must be expressed to be given under section 24(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954”. The notice that the tenant gave did not contain those words, although it complied with the clause in all other respects. Was the notice valid?
The judge (Mr Nicholas Strauss QC) held that it was. His judgment is at [2013] EWHC B15 (Ch) . The landlords, represented by Mr Mark Wonnacott QC, appeal against that decision. The tenants, represented by Mr Timothy Fancourt QC and Mr Tom Weekes, seek to uphold the judge’s decision. For the reasons which follow I would allow the appeal.
Background
In a foreword to Warwick and Trompeter on Break Clauses I wrote:
“If the tenant tries to exercise the break, the chances are that he does so because the market has changed. He is paying more than the rental value of the leased property and wants cheaper accommodation elsewhere. The consequence of failure will be expensive. But the change in economic conditions will be precisely the reason why the landlord will fiercely resist the tenant’s attempt to break the lease. He will pick over the tenant’s notice exercising the break looking for any possible error; and he will examine minutely whether the tenant has fulfilled any conditions on which the validity of the break notice depends. Does it specify the right date? Was it served by the right person? Was it given to the right person? Was it given in accordance with any stipulated timetable? Did the tenant comply sufficiently with his obligations under the lease? Has the tenant given vacant possession? If any one of these questions elicits even a plausible negative answer the stage is set for a full scale battle.”
This case exemplifies that approach. But the question in our case is slightly different: was the notice in the right form?
The lease
The lease was granted on 27 January 1999 pursuant to an agreement for a lease dated 14 August 1997. The term was 25 years from and including 24 August 1998. Clause 19 of the lease contained a break clause in the following terms:
“19.1 In this clause the Termination Date means 23 August 2013.
19.2 Subject to the pre-conditions in clause 19.3 being satisfied on the Termination Date, and subject to clause 19.4 the Tenant may determine the Term on the Termination Date by giving the Landlo