Summary

The appellant landlord (L) appealed against a decision that a second counternotice served by the respondent tenant (T) satisfied s.29(2) Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.

Facts

The first counternotice, issued by T in response to L's notice under s.25 of the Act for termination of his business tenancy, erroneously stated that T would be willing to give up possession of the property. The error was noticed before the time for serving a counternotice had expired. T consequently served a negative counternotice and then applied for the grant of a new tenancy. L successfully applied to strike out proceedings. The judge allowed T's appeal against the striking out of his application. L submitted that the judge was not entitled to depart from the reasoning in Re 14 Grafton Street [1971] 1 Ch 935. T argued that the decision in that case violated his rights under Art.6 and Protocol 1 Art.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Held

The Court of Appeal reversed Pumfrey J's decision that a tenant could serve a negative counter-notice following the service of a positive counter-notice, provided it was within 2 months of the landlord's s.25 notice. The Court of Appeal held that Art 1 of the first protocol was engaged but that the measure was proportionate and did not violate the Human Rights Act.