• news-banner

    Expert Insights

Court of Appeal decides defective notice to quit not saved by 'Mannai' principles

On 3 November 2022, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in the second appeal in O G Thomas Amaethyddiath v Turner & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 1446.

This was an agricultural tenancy case concerning the validity of a landlord's notice to quit and the application of the Mannai test (so named after its application in the well-known Mannai Investment Co v Eagle Star Life Assurance [1997] AC 749 case). The issue for the Court to determine was simple: whether the notice to quit the agricultural holding was valid.


The Court of Appeal overturned both the decision at the first instance and the decision on the first appeal ([2022] EWHC 1239), holding that a notice to quit unambiguously addressed to the former tenant of a holding was not given to the current tenant, and nor could it be interpreted as such.

The landlord's argument that the notice clearly and unambiguously communicated the required message, failed.

Facts of the case

Mr Thomas has been the tenant of an agricultural holding pursuant to an oral tenancy from year to year, governed by the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986.

On 1 November 2019, and without notifying the landlord, Mr Thomas instructed solicitors to assign the tenancy to a newly incorporated company called O G Thomas Amaethyddiaeth CYF, of which he was the sole director and shareholder and whose registered office was the same as his home address. Because the tenancy was oral, it contained no restriction on its assignment by the tenant.

Three days later the landlord served a notice to quit, addressed to Mr Thomas (not the company), and delivered it by hand to his home address. No counter-notice was given.

The issue for the Court to consider was whether the notice served on Mr Thomas was valid against the company.


Both of the lower Courts held the notice to be valid against the company. Applying the test from Mannai, both HHJ Jarman KC at first instance and Zacaroli J on first appeal considered that the notice clearly conveyed the landlord's intention to require the person who was in fact the tenant (whoever they may be), to deliver up possession of the land. Therefore, the notice was deemed validly given to the company.

However, the Court of Appeal disagreed (relying on the decision in R (Morris) v London Rent Assessment Committee [2002] EWCA Civ 276 and two Scottish decisions from the Inner House of the Court of Session). It held that addressing a notice to quit to the wrong recipient amounted to a failure to satisfy a "formal" condition for the notice's validity, which could not be saved by Mannai.

In Mannai itself, the House of Lords decided that, even though there was an error in the notice given, the notice was otherwise clear and unambiguous, and left no reasonable doubt about its intention. That notice was 'saved,' and the tenant was able to break its lease.

However, Mannai will only save a notice where the intention to serve on the intended recipient is nonetheless clear. The Lords in Mannai made a distinguishment between "formal" requirements on one hand, and "requirements to impart information" on the other. As an example, Mannai principles can save a notice with typographical mistakes, as these are a requirement to impart information. Lord Hoffman famously illustrated the difference between these requirements when he stated that: "If the clause had said that the notice had to be on blue paper, it would have been no good serving a notice on pink paper, however clear it might have been that the tenant wanted to terminate the lease."

In O G Thomas however, the failure to serve on the correct tenant was a "formal" condition, not an information requirement. The landlord did not know the tenancy had been assigned and did not know the company even existed, so it could never have intended to serve the notice on the company in compliance with the formal condition of the notice.

The tenant's appeal succeeded.


O G Thomas is an important decision for property practitioners and a helpful reminder of the principles laid down in Mannai - where a notice does not comply with formal requirements, it will not be valid. It naturally follows that where a notice has been clearly given to the wrong recipient, Mannai will not save it.

It serves as a timely reminder to make appropriate enquiries of the recipient whenever notices are being served.

At Charles Russell Speechlys LLP we have considerable experience in the drafting and service of notices. Please do contact us if we can assist.

Our thinking

  • Mental Health Management

    Nick Hurley


  • Calculating Social Value in BTR

    Francis Ho


  • Dangers of trusts

    Mark Summers


  • In-House Insights

    Megan Paul


  • Updates and points to note in relation to buy-to-let residential properties

    Twiggy Ho


  • Charles Russell Speechlys expands commercial offering with the appointment of Rebecca Steer

    Rebecca Steer


  • The Times quotes Gareth Mills on the CMA’s preliminary approval of the Activision Blizzard-Microsoft deal

    Gareth Mills

    In the Press

  • Heritage property and conditional exemption

    Sarah Wray


  • The Financial Times quotes Emma Humphreys on UK rental costs

    Emma Humphreys

    In the Press

  • Stamp Duty Refund - New Impetus To Eligible Incoming Talents

    Ian Devereux


  • City AM quotes Gareth Mills on the CMA’s new set of principles for regulating AI

    Gareth Mills

    In the Press

  • Hamish Perry and Mike Barrington write for The Evening Standard on whether a merger between the CBI and Make UK can work

    Hamish Perry

    In the Press

  • Silicon quotes Gareth Mills on the UK consumer lawsuit against Google

    Gareth Mills

    In the Press

  • Common construction claims in Bahrain

    Mazin Al Mardhi


  • Property Week quotes Louise Ward on the additional support required by aspiring UK life sciences operators

    Louise Ward

    In the Press

  • Sarah Higgins and David Wells-Cole write for Wealth Briefing on the pitfalls of using unregulated legal services

    Sarah Higgins

    In the Press

  • Charles Russell Speechlys’ UK offices receive environmental certification

    Kerry Stares


  • Case analysis: URS Corporation Ltd V BDW Trading Ltd

    James Worthington


  • True value adjudications; don’t jump the gun!

    Christopher Busaileh


  • Financial Reporter quotes Rhys Novak on a new FCA review into the treatment of PEPs

    Rhys Novak

    In the Press

Back to top