Freetown Ltd v Assethold
Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1657
On 14 December 2012, the Court
of Appeal held that the serving of a party wall award under section 15(1) of
the Party Wall Act etc. 1996 (‘the Act’) was effective from the date of receipt
(or deemed receipt), and not the date on which it was posted, regardless of
whether it was sent by registered or recorded post. Accordingly, the date of
receipt, or deemed receipt, should be used to calculate the 14-day time limit
for filing an appeal against a party wall award.
Freetown Limited and Assethold
Limited were, respectively, the freeholder and long term lessee of immediately
adjacent properties. Freetown had served notice of its intention to carry out
development works at its property, which Assethold objected to. Each party appointed a surveyor who then jointly
selected a third surveyor under section 10(1) of the Act.
The third surveyor made a
party wall award and posted it to the parties either on Friday 22 July or
Saturday 23 July 2011. Freetown received the award on Monday 25 July 2011 and
lodged an appeal against it on 8 August 2011. Under the Act the time for
lodging an appeal against an award is 14 days, there being no provision for an
extension of time (under the Act or otherwise).
If time began to run from when
the award was posted then the 14 days for appealing would have expired on
either Thursday 4 August or Friday 5 August 2011. If, however, time began to
run from the day it was received by Freetown, the time would have expired on
Sunday 7 August 2011, when the court office was closed. The time limit would thus have been extended
to the next working day, 8 August 2011, (following the reasoning in Mucelli v The Government of Albania [2009]
UKHL 2). On this basis, Freetown would have lodged its appeal in time.
The appeal against the award
was initially dismissed by a county court judge as being out of time. Freetown appealed to the High Court, where
Slade J upheld the decision of the lower court. In reaching her decision, Slade
J relied on the reasoning in C A Webber
(Transport) Ltd. v Railtrack plc [2004] 1 WLR 320 (CA).
In Webber, the Court of Appeal considered whether a notice had been
effectively served by registered post under section 23 of the Landlord and
Tenant Act 1927 (‘LTA 1927’). The
question before the Court was whether section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978,
regarding service by post, was applicable in determining effective service
under the LTA 1927. Section 7 is applicable to any statutory provision
concerning post, unless there is an express or implied contrary intention in
the particular provision in question.
Section 7 of the
Interpretation Act, headed ‘References to service by post’, provides that where
a letter has been properly addressed and posted, service is deemed to have been
effective at the time the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary
course of posting. The Court in Webber
held that section 7 was excluded from the interpretation of section 23 by
finding a ‘contrary intention’ in the section.
In the present appeal, the
Court of Appeal held that the lower courts had erred by drawing a collation
between section 23 of the LTA 1927 and section 15(1) of the Act. Rix LJ, giving the principal judgment, was
struck by how the section 23, LTA 1927 jurisprudence had proceeded with little
reference to section 7 of the Interpretation Act. In such circumstances, he
considered it inappropriate to extend the reasoning applicable to section 23 of
the LTA 1927 into a different statute, with different wording, by reference to
which it could not be said that section 7 was excluded on the basis that a
“contrary intention” appeared.
Instead, the Court held that
section 7 of the Interpretation Act did
apply as there appeared no contrary intention in the Act to suggest otherwise.
The wording of section 15(1) of the Act pointed prima facie to receipt being effective service, with the Act
requiring an award to be served on a
person or addressed to them specifically if posted. Rix LJ stated that any other conclusion would
be a highly improbable interpretation of section 15(1). To hold otherwise would have been unreasonable
in Rix LJ’s view, given that:
1. It
would be in disconformity with the common law, the other provisions of s. 15(1)
of the Act, and with the explicit intent of section 7 of the Interpretation Act
to be of application “unless the contrary intention” appeared.
2. Section
7’s “helpful” code concerning posting would be lost.
3. An
award could be deemed served even if it had not been received, or received in
time, which was essentially unfair to the prospective appellant.
4. The
short time for lodging an appeal of 14 days could seriously be eroded if time
were to commence from the date of posting rather than receipt.
In the circumstances, the
Court held it was unnecessary to rule on the appellant’s further submission
relating to section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
The appeal was therefore allowed.
Read the judgment here.
Lawrence Power acted
for Freetown Limited in the county court and High Court proceedings where he
advanced arguments that were subsequently successful on appeal.