In this Newsflash episode, Lizzie Collin is joined by Richard Snape to unpack the High Court’s ex tempore decision in Lamba v Enfield Borough Council, a judgment that has already sparked lively debate across LinkedIn.

The case raises fundamental questions about how notices are validly served under leases.

Richard and Lizzie discuss:

•How the court approached the interaction between section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 and section 23 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 when serving notices.
•Why the decision appears to depart from established authority on when service is deemed effective
•The significance of lease drafting, particularly where notice provisions state that notices “shall” be served in accordance with section 196.
•The potential implications for statutory notices under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 and the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995.
•Steps landlords, tenants, and practitioners should take to minimise risk when serving notices while uncertainty remains.

This podcast highlights how a single drafting choice can fundamentally alter long-understood principles. For anyone advising on commercial property, lease renewals or break notices, this is a timely deep dive into a developing and potentially contentious area of law.

Other cases mentioned include:

•Commercial Union v Mustafa [1999]
•Blunden v Frogmore Investments Ltd [2002]
•CA Webber (Transport) Ltd v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd (formerly Railtract Plc) [2003]
•Beanby Estates Ltd v The Egg Stores (Stamford Hill) Ltd [2003]
•Galinski v McHugh [1989]

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not intended to provide legal or professional advice. No liability is accepted by Davitt Jones Bould for any reliance placed on its content.