Serving valid notices can be a minefield.  However, over the years, the courts have been prepared to “save” a defective notice by construing it through the eyes of a reasonable recipient with knowledge of the background facts: would that recipient be misled or not?  If they would not be, the notice was deemed valid (the “Mannai test”).  It is not a panacea, in that if a notice fails to comply with specified conditions, such as that it must be served on pink paper, it would be treated as invalid even if the recipient understood perfectly what the notice was intended to do.

The Court of Appeal recently had the opportunity, in the case of O G Thomas Amaethyddiath v Turner & Ors [2022], to consider whether a notice served on the wrong recipient was a defect which could be saved by Mannai.

Mr Thomas held a tenancy subject to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. He assigned it to a company of which he was the sole director and shareholder and the company’s registered office was the same as his home address. He did not tell his landlord about the assignment.  Only a few days later, his landlord served a notice to quit, addressed to Mr Thomas and served at his home address.  Under statute the notice had to be ‘given to’ the tenant.  The company claimed the notice was invalid on the basis that it had not been given to the actual tenant.

Both the County and High Courts held that if they applied the Mannai test, the notice was deemed valid, as the reasonable tenant reading the notice would have understood that it was intended to be addressed to the company.

However, the Court of Appeal allowed the company’s further appeal for two reasons:

• The landlord had made a factual error.  As it did not know about the assignment, it could not have intended that the notice be meant for the company.
• Mr Thomas knew that the landlord was unaware of the assignment to the company. Therefore, he would not have construed the notice as being given to the company.

The notice had not therefore been ‘given to’ the company and the formal statutory requirements had not been met.  That meant that the Mannai test was irrelevant.

The case of O G Thomas Amaethyddiath v Turner & Ors reminds practitioners of the importance of making thorough enquiries when drafting and serving notices.  Where required, the notice should include wording such as “to [the named recipient] or otherwise the Tenant” and a copy of the notice should be sent to each separately.