Blunden v Frogmore Investments Ltd
Series: Estates Gazette ; [2002]29 EG 153-161(9)Publication details: 2002Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2002] EWCA Civ 573, 30 April 2002. Defendant landlord (F) had served notice on appellant tenant (B) after F had invoked the terms of a break clause in the lease of the retail unit which had been suffered substantial bomb damage. B claimed that the service of the notice had not been valid. F had sent a copy of the notice to B's last known address - the demised premises and affixed a notice to the property. B claimed the posted notice had been sent back to F's solicitor without him seeing it and that he could not see the notice on the premises because the premises were boarded up. B's claim that the notices were invalid was dismissed by the HC and CA. Under the terms of the lease it was sufficient if the notice was sent by post. It did not have to be brought to the tenant's attention or have even to be delivered. In respect of good service via the notice affixed to the demised premises it was deemed unnecessary to express a concluded view. View judgment at www.courtservice.gov.uk/.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Date due | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS65741 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 119166-1001 |
[2002] EWCA Civ 573, 30 April 2002. Defendant landlord (F) had served notice on appellant tenant (B) after F had invoked the terms of a break clause in the lease of the retail unit which had been suffered substantial bomb damage. B claimed that the service of the notice had not been valid. F had sent a copy of the notice to B's last known address - the demised premises and affixed a notice to the property. B claimed the posted notice had been sent back to F's solicitor without him seeing it and that he could not see the notice on the premises because the premises were boarded up. B's claim that the notices were invalid was dismissed by the HC and CA. Under the terms of the lease it was sufficient if the notice was sent by post. It did not have to be brought to the tenant's attention or have even to be delivered. In respect of good service via the notice affixed to the demised premises it was deemed unnecessary to express a concluded view. View judgment at www.courtservice.gov.uk/.