Liz Shaw, director at Wake Smith Solicitors looks at how the Court of Appeal viewed a typographical error case and overturned the decision.
Earlier this year, the Court of Appeal provided further clarity as to the effect of the “reasonable recipient” test on the validity of unilateral notices which contained an error.
In this case, the Appellant landlord had served a notice under Section 8 of The Housing Act 1988 on the Respondent tenants on 7 November 2018. The notice stated that the court proceedings would not begin until after 26 November 2017.
At first instance the Judge held that this was an obvious typographical error and that the reasonable recipient of the notices would have realised that the intended date was 26 November 2018.
However, he held that the error in the date meant the notice was invalid as the reasonable recipient test following Mannai Investment Co Ltd did not apply to Section 8 notices.
The Court of Appeal overturned that decision and held that the notice was valid. The Court of Appeal held that a statutory notice is to be interpreted in accordance with Mannai.
If a reasonable recipient would appreciate that the notice contained an error and would appreciate what meaning the notice was intended to convey then that is how the notice is to be interpreted.
Furthermore, in this case, the Court of Appeal said that if there was any doubt about that conclusion it was further dispelled by the covering letter which made it clear that proceedings would not be issued before 26 November 2018.
The key points are:
The Mannai test of the reasonable recipient reading the notice in context (including any covering letter) applies to unilateral notices;
The notice must still however meet statutory requirements and the purpose of those requirements must therefore be considered;
The failure to meet the precise statutory requirements will not invalidate the notice if it is “substantially to the same effect” and fulfils the statutory purpose.
For further information contact Elizabeth Shaw at [email protected]
