D'Aubigny (Appellant) v Khan and another (Respondents)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0054

Parties

Appellant(s)

Elena D'Aubigny

Respondent(s)

Kameel Khan and Julia Randell Khan

National Residential Landlords Association

Issue

(1) Was a letter serving a gas safety certificate etc a “notice” within the meaning of the tenancy agreement? (2) Is there a common law presumption that a properly addressed letter that is posted is presumed to be received unless the intended recipient can prove the contrary?

Facts

The Respondents sought possession, under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988, of a property let to the Appellant under an assured shorthold tenancy. Clause 13 of the tenancy agreement provided that any notice sent to the tenant under or in connection with the tenancy agreement shall be deemed to have been properly served if sent by first class post to the property. The Respondents served a section 21 notice on the Appellant on 17 March 2020 by first class post and recorded delivery, and the Appellant received it on or about that date. The Appellant argued that the section 21 notice was invalid because the Respondents had not served her with an Energy Performance Certificate (“EPC”), Gas Safety Record (“GSR”) or a How to Rent booklet. These documents must be given to a tenant before a section 21 notice can be given. The Respondents contended that they had posted the documents to her by recorded delivery, but the Appellant denied receipt. Wandsworth County Court held that section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (which provides that where an Act authorises or requires a document to be sent by post, service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time when the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post) applied to section 21 of the Housing Act 1988. Therefore, it was for the Appellant to prove that she did not receive the documents, which she had not done. Therefore, the documents were deemed to have been served and the section 21 notice was valid. A possession order was made against the Appellant. The Central London County Court dismissed the Appellant’s appeal, as did the Court of Appeal. The Appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

31 March 2025

Case origin

PTA

Back to top