Sense made of service of notices
Series: Estates Gazette ; (0247) 23 November 2002, 145(1)Publication details: 2002Subject(s): Summary: In "W X Investments Ltd v Begg" [2002] EWHC 925 (Ch); [2002] 1 WLR 2849 a step has been taken to refuse to follow controversial ruling made in "Stephenson and Sons v Orca Properties Ltd" [1989] 44 EG 81, where no one had been available to sign for delivery of rent review notice, so it was judged that it had not been served. WX Investments case ruled that Law of Property Act 1925 ensures that service of notice sent by recorded delivery cannot be denied, except where it is returned by post. In such a case, notice is accepted as having been served on date when it would have been delivered by ordinary post, regardless of whether someone is available to sign for it.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| News article | London News article | WB3844-13 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 120573-1001 |
In "W X Investments Ltd v Begg" [2002] EWHC 925 (Ch); [2002] 1 WLR 2849 a step has been taken to refuse to follow controversial ruling made in "Stephenson and Sons v Orca Properties Ltd" [1989] 44 EG 81, where no one had been available to sign for delivery of rent review notice, so it was judged that it had not been served. WX Investments case ruled that Law of Property Act 1925 ensures that service of notice sent by recorded delivery cannot be denied, except where it is returned by post. In such a case, notice is accepted as having been served on date when it would have been delivered by ordinary post, regardless of whether someone is available to sign for it.