Calladine -Smith v Saveorder Ltd

Calladine -Smith v Saveorder Ltd

The presumption of service under Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 can be rebutted by the addressee proving, on the balance of probabilities, that the notice was not received. The Claimant's evidence of non-receipt was sufficient to displace the presumption, and the counter-notice was not served within the statutory time limit.

Parties
Claimant: Calladine-Smith; Respondent: Saveorder Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Service of Notices, Interpretation Act 1978 Section 7, Leasehold Reform (housing and Urban Development) Act 1993 Section 45, Burden of Proof
Landlord and Tenant Law Statutory Interpretation Service of Notices Interpretation Act 1978 Section 7 Leasehold Reform (housing and Urban Development) Act 1993 Section 45 Burden of Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Calladine-Smith

Claimant

Saveorder Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-receipt of a statutory notice is sufficient to rebut the presumption of service under Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978
  2. 2 Whether the burden on the addressee is only to prove non-receipt on the balance of probabilities or to provide positive evidence of non-delivery

Ratio Decidendi

The presumption of service under Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 can be rebutted by the addressee proving, on the balance of probabilities, that the notice was not received. The Claimant's evidence of non-receipt was sufficient to displace the presumption, and the counter-notice was not served within the statutory time limit.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • It is declared that the counter-notice was not served on the Claimant.
  • The case falls within Section 49 of the Leasehold Reform (Housing and Urban Development) Act 1993, and the agreed order under that section is to be made.