27 Apr 2026
Peterborough office
48 Broadway, Peterborough Cambridgeshire, PE1 1YW
01733 346 333 01733 562 338 enquiries@hegarty.co.ukStamford office
10 Ironmonger Street, Stamford Lincolnshire, PE9 1PL
01780 752 066 01780 762 774 enquiries@hegarty.co.ukOakham office
66 South Street, Oakham Rutland, LE15 6BQ
01572 757 565 01572 720 555 enquiries@hegarty.co.ukMarket Deeping office
27a Market Place, Market Deeping, PE6 8EA
01778 230 120 01778 230 129 enquiries@hegarty.co.uk27 Apr 2026
Disputes involving commercial property can be complex, time-consuming, and costly. One recent High Court decision has highlighted just how critical it is to get the service of legal notices right under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
In this article, we explain the key lessons from Lamba v Enfield LBC and what landlords and tenants should be doing now to protect their position.
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 provides security of tenure for many business tenants in England and Wales. This means a commercial lease does not simply end when the contractual term expires. Instead, it continues unless it is properly terminated in accordance with the Act.
One of the primary ways a landlord can bring a protected tenancy to an end (or propose new terms) is by serving a section 25 notice.
Given the importance of these notices, strict rules govern how they must be served.
Historically, landlords have relied on section 23 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927. Under this provision:
In simple terms, as long as the notice was correctly addressed and sent via registered or recorded delivery, it was usually considered valid, even if the tenant never received it.
This “deemed service” approach has long been viewed as landlord friendly.
The case of Lamba v Enfield LBC challenged this long-standing assumption.
The key facts:
Under section 196, a notice is only treated as served if it is not returned undelivered.
The High Court found in favour of the tenant.
Crucially, it held that:
This meant the landlord could not rely on the usual statutory rules and had failed to properly terminate the tenancy.
This decision has significant implications for both landlords and tenants.
1. Lease Terms Can Override Statute
The case confirms that where a lease clearly sets out how notices must be served, those provisions may take precedence, even over statutory methods.
2. Service Is Not Just a Technicality
Failing to serve a valid notice can have serious consequences, including:
3. Increased Scope for Disputes
The decision opens the door for tenants to challenge notices that were previously assumed to be valid, particularly where lease wording is strict or unclear.
Following Lamba v Enfield, a cautious and proactive approach is essential.
As this case demonstrates, even a small drafting detail can have a major impact on the outcome.
At Hegarty, our experienced dispute resolution team regularly advise both landlords and tenants on issues arising under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
Whether you need support serving a notice, reviewing a lease, or resolving a dispute, we can provide clear, practical guidance tailored to your situation.
Whatever legal support you need, our experienced and highly skilled solicitors and legal advisors are here to help. With expertise across a wide range of legal areas, we provide clear, practical advice tailored to you. What sets us apart is our commitment to understanding your needs and delivering the best possible outcome with a personal touch.
