000			01840cab a2200265 4500
001			ABS67528
008			040226n2004 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u125241
245			_aShaws (EAL) Ltd v Walbert Pennycook
260			_c2004
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[2004] 18 EG 102-110(9)
520			_a[2004] EWCA (Civ) 100, 12 February 2004. The appellant landlord (L) appealed against a HC decision ([2002] EWHC 2769 (Ch), Abs66721) that a second counternotice served by the respondent tenant (T) satisfied the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s29(2). The first counternotice, issued by T in response to L's notice under s29(2) of the Act for termination of his business tenancy, wrongly stated that T would be willing to vacate the property. Before the expiry of the two month time limit for service of a counternotice, T issued a second counternotice to rectify the mistake and then applied for the grant of a new tenancy. L was allowed to strike out the proceedings. The judge allowed T's appeal against the striking out of his application. L appealed. "Held" the appeal was allowed because it was not open to a tenant to serve a second counternotice. View judgment at www.bailii.org.
590			_aABS
650			_aREVOLVING COUNTERNOTICES
650			_aDEFECTIVE NOTICES
650			_aCONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 6
650			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954 S29(2)
650			_aSERVING NOTICES
650			_aSHAWS (EAL) LTD V PENNYCOOK
650			_aTENANCY RENEWAL
650			_aCONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS FIRST PROTOCOL ART 1
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-BUSINESS TENANCIES-CASE LAW
856			_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/100.html _zView judgment on the BAILII website...
942			_n0
999			_c74174 _d74174