[2002] EWHC 2835 (Ch), 19 December 2002. Claimant tenant (P) sought declaration as to validity of break clause notice in favour of the tenant. The original tenant Procter and Gamble Health and Beauty Care Ltd (H and B) assigned the lease to another Procter and Gamble company, the claimant tenant (P) in 1998. In 2000 a rent review memorandum was executed between defendant landlord (B) and the original tenant, but the details of each party were incorrect. In 2002, a solicitor acting on behalf of Procter and Gamble served a break notice in the name of the original tenant (H and B). The landlord denied that the break clause was valid on the grounds that: firstly, P did not have the desire to determine the lease; secondly P had not served the notice; and thirdly, the notice was invalid. HC dismissed the claim on the grounds that the notice was ineffective to determine the lease. "Lemmerbell Ltd and another v Britannia LAS Direct Ltd" (CA, X95637) applied.