Siemens Hearing Instruments Ltd v Friends Life Ltd [2013] EWHC (Ch) All ER (D) 188

The lease stated that the notice must "be expressed to be given under section 24(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954", but the notice served did not mention the Act. The landlord claimed it was therefore invalid using the case of Garston and Others Scottish Widows Fund [1998] 1 WLR 1583 as the main argument. In this case the tenant's notice contained an incorrect date, but would have been clear to a reasonable recipient of the notice what the intended date should have been, and therefore the notice was effective.

Siemens argued on basis of Garston deicision the words requiring a notice to be expressed to be given under s24(2) of LTA 1954 had become pointless and could therefore be disregarded. The court

A tenant was found to have a business tenancy rather than a residential tenancy, so a possession order due to rent arrears had been made wrongfully.

The Council of the London Borough of Hackney granted the tenant a ten year lease which described the premises as shop premises, in which the lower part would be dedicated to the sale of fish and fish-keeping equipment and the upper part for residential purposes. The lease also obliged the tenant to keep the premises open as a shop during usual business hours. Broadway Investments bought the council’s freehold of the property in 2002, and in February 2005 sought to repossess the property. The tenant owed arrears of rent of over £25,000.

Tenants rented an eight bedroom house in Newquay on an assured shorthold tenancy in May 1993. The property had been used a guest house previously, but the agreement contained a clause that limited its use to a single private dwelling. The tenants, however, used the property as a guest house. In September 1994 the tenants stopped paying rent as they were aggrieved about certain items of disrepair. The landlords gave two months notice that they required possession, and then went on to to issue proceedings for possession and recovery of rent arrears of £3,150. The tenants claimed that their tenancy was a business tenancy rather than a residential tenancy.  Secondly, if that failed, they also contended that their tenancy was an assured and not an assured shorthold tenancy because of defects in the notice. The dates on the notice were incorrect and the old form of notice had been used.

HELD: The Court of Appeal held that [...]

The tenant of a flat was an art historian whose work fell into four categories: organising exhibitions, advising private clients, lecturing and writing. Most of the work relating to the organisation of exhibitions was not done at the flat. The defendant hardly ever saw private clients at the flat and visited such clients at their place of business or home. Occasionally, foreign visitors saw him at the flat but such visits happened on average less than once a year. The defendant's writing took place at the flat. Not all the work involved was carried out there, as the writing required research in libraries and galleries. Approximately 30% of the work involved in his writing took place at the flat. None of the lectures were given there. There was

The tenant bred dogs and provided kennelling for which she charged. In 1974, she was granted a tenancy for residential purposes.

HELD: [...]

The landlord let a flat to a limited company for a six-month term, so as to enable a director of the company to occupy the flat without the right of becoming its statutory tenant under the Rent Act 1977. A three-month extension of the term expired and the director, who had been occupying the flat since the letting and paying the rent, refused to give up possession. The landlord applied for possession.

HELD: [...]

A doctor rented a maisonette as his residence. He asked the landlords for permission to carry on his profession from the residence and the landlords had agreed to this request. The doctor also rented separate consulting rooms in Harley Street.  Both addresses featured in the medical directory and both telephone numbers were listed on his stationary.

(Heard in the Court of Appeal with Royal Life Saving Society v Page [1978])
A businessman used the flat in which he lived to conduct an import business, which appeared to have no other premises. He installed in the flat a telephone, typewriter and files, and his business notepaper gave the telephone number of the flat and the address as a PO Box. 
The landlords brought proceedings against the tenant alleging [...]