000			01742cam a2200241 4500
001			ABS65741
008			020802n2002 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u119166
245			_aBlunden v Frogmore Investments Ltd
260			_c2002
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[2002]29 EG 153-161(9)
520			_a[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/.
590			_aABS
650			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1927 s23(1)
650			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954
650			_aLAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 S196(3)
650			_aCONTRACTUAL NOTICE
650			_aBREAK CLAUSES
650			_aDEMISED PREMISES
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW
856			_uhttps://www.courtservice.gov.uk/View.do?id=1155 _zView the judgment on the Court Service website
942			_n0
999			_c70886 _d70886