Service of 1954 Act notices: the implications of the High Court’s decision in Lamba v Enfield

The High Court’s decision in Lamba v London Borough of Enfield [2025] EWHC 3543 (KB) marks a surprising departure from what many practitioners had long assumed about service of notices under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (the LTA 1954) and opens additional grounds for challenging notices served under the 1954 Act and potentially beyond.

The generally accepted view had been that even where a lease incorporated section 196 Law of Property Act 1925 (the LPA 1925) or other methods of service, landlords could still rely on the broader statutory method in section 23 Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 (the LTA 1927) to serve notice pursuant to the LTA 1954. In Lamba, the court instead held that adopting s.196 or other contractual service provisions may, in certain situations, itself be sufficient to displace s.23 altogether.

Background

The dispute arose from a small commercial property located in Ponders End, Enfield. The tenant (Lamba) ran an estate agency from the premises under a long‑standing business lease. The London Borough of Enfield became the landlord in December 2017 after acquiring the freehold. 

The landlord maintained that it had brought the tenancy to an end by serving a notice under s.25 LTA 1954 by recorded delivery on 27 November 2017. The tenant said it had never received such a notice and continued trading until the landlord changed the locks in or around July 2018. 

The parties’ positions

The landlord argued that the s.25 notice, although returned undelivered, had been properly served under s.23 LTA 1927, which applies to LTA 1954 notices pursuant to s.66(4) LTA 1954. Therefore, the tenancy terminated on 8 June 2018 (the termination date specified in the notice). 

The tenant argued that the notice had never been received and, importantly, that service wasn't carried out in accordance with clause 9.9 of the lease, which reads: “The provisions of section 196 of the 1925 Act … shall apply to the giving and service of all notices and documents under or in connection with this lease”.

The dispute, therefore, turned on whether clause 9.9 created an exclusive method of service.

The difference between s.23 LTA 1927 and s.196 LPA 1925 largely relates to the risk of non-delivery. 

• s.23 LTA 1927 allows a notice to be served by leaving it at the last known address or by registered post without requiring proof that the letter was successfully delivered. The risk of non-delivery sits with the tenant. 
• s.196 LPA 1925 allows service by registered or recorded post only if the letter is not returned by the postal operator. The risk of non-delivery sits with the landlord.

Here, the s.25 notice was returned undelivered and there was no accepted evidence of any alternative (for example, first class) posting. Under s.23, service could still have been effective. Under s.196, it was not.

The High Court’s decision

The court found that clause 9.9 of the lease incorporated s.196 LPA 1925 as the only valid method of service. Importantly, the court held that the phrase “all notices under or in connection with the lease” includes LTA 1954 notices, and therefore the parties had contractually agreed to disapply s.66(4) LTA 1954 – and therefore s.23 LTA 1927 – in favour of the comparatively more tenant-friendly s.196 LPA 1925. Because the lease required compliance with s.196 LPA 1925 and service under that provision failed, the notice had not been validly served. 

Implications for landlords and tenants 

Landlords and tenants should treat service clauses in leases with particular care following this decision.

If a lease adopts mandatory service provisions, then statutory notices, such as notices under the 1954 may also be caught by the service provisions. The implications of acting on a defective notice can be severe such as a claim for unlawful eviction, delays in development timetables or lost interim rent.

Our content explained