Mannai Investment Co. v. Eagle Star Life Assurance Co., (1997) 215 N.R. 321 (HL)

• Case Date: January 20, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1997), 215 N.R. 321 (HL)

Mannai Inv. Co. v. Eagle Star Life (1997), 215 N.R. 321 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

Mannai Investment Company Limited (appellants) v. Eagle Star Life Assurance Company Limited (respondents)

Indexed As: Mannai Investment Co. v. Eagle Star Life Assurance Co.

House of Lords

London, England

Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle,

Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann and Lord Clyde

May 21, 1997.

Summary:

A tenant sent two letters to its landlord to terminate its fixed term leases effective January 12, 1995. Each lease permitted the tenant to terminate only on the third an­niversary of the commencement date (January 13, 1995). The tenant sought a declaration that notices effectively deter­mined the leases.

The Chancery Division held that the notices had effectively determined the leases, where they did not take effect until that moment of time which was both the last moment of January 12 and the first moment of January 13. The landlord appealed.

The Court of Appeal, in a decision re­ported [1995] 1 W.L.R. 1508, concluded that the notices were ineffective and allowed the appeal. The tenant appealed.

The House of Lords, Lord Goff of Chieveley and Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle dissenting, allowed the appeal.

Landlord and Tenant - Topic 6563

Termination, forfeiture and reentry - Right of termination - Time for exercising - A tenant sent two letters to its landlord to terminate its fixed term leases effective January 12, 1995 "[p]ursuant to clause 7(13)" of each lease - Clause 7(13) in each lease permitted the tenant to ter­minate only on the third anniversary of the commencement date (January 13, 1995) - At issue was whether the notices were effective - The House of Lords, Lord Goff of Chieveley and Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle dissenting, held that the notices were effective to determine the lease - In reaching their decision Lord Steyn and Lord Hoffmann applied the fol­lowing test: "Is the notice quite clear to a reasonable tenant reading it? Is it plain that he cannot be mislead by it?" - See paragraphs 56 to 84 - Lord Clyde con­strued the notice and concluded that it satisfied the requirements of clause 7(13) - See paragraphs 85 to 92.

Landlord and Tenant - Topic 6563

Termination, forfeiture and reentry - Right of termination - Time for exercising - A tenant sent two letters to its landlord to terminate its fixed term leases effective January 12, 1995 - Each lease permitted the tenant to terminate only on the third anniversary of the commencement date (January 13, 1995) - The trial judge granted the tenant a declaration that the notices had effectively determined the leases, on the basis that they did not take effect until that moment in time which was both the last moment of January 12 and the first moment of January 13 - The House of Lords affirmed that the notices had effectively determined the leases, but rejected the proposition that a notice to terminate a fixed term lease served on one day could be treated as a notice served on the next - See paragraphs 3, 43 and 92.

Landlord and Tenant - Topic 6689

Termination, forfeiture, and reentry - Notice of termination - Validity of - [See both Landlord and Tenant - Topic 6563 ].

Cases Noticed:

Sidebotham v. Holland, [1895] 1 Q.B. 378, refd to. [paras. 3, 41].

Cadby v. Martinez (1840), 11 Ad. & El. 720, refd to. [paras. 5, 28, 46, 58].

Hankey v. Clavering, [1942] 2 K.B. 326, not folld. [paras. 7, 28, 46, 58, 92].

Phipps and Co. v. Rogers, [1925] 1 K.B. 14, refd to. [para. 12].

Gardner v. Ingram (1889), 61 L.T. 729, refd to. [para. 12].

Doe d. Cox v. Roe (1802), 4 Esp. 185, refd to. [paras. 14, 65].

Carradine Properties Ltd. v. Aslam, [1976] 1 W.L.R. 442, folld. [paras. 14, 30, 50, 73, 88].

Micrografix v. Woking 8 Ltd., [1995] 2 E.G.L.R. 32, not folld. [paras. 18, 32, 48, 83, 90].

Germax Securities Ltd. v. Spiegel (1978), 37 P. & C.R. 204 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 20, 83].

Delta Vale Properties Ltd. v. Mills, [1990] 1 W.L.R. 445 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 21, 32, 45, 89].

Sunrose Ltd. v. Gould, [1962] 1 W.L.R. 20 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Reardon Smith Line Ltd. v. Hansen-Tangen et al., [1976] 1 W.L.R. 989 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 45, 81].

Norwegian American Cruises A/S v. Mundy (Paul) Ltd.; Ship Vistafjord, [1988] 2 Lloyds Rep. 343 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Antaios Compania Naviera S.A. v. Salen Rederierna A.B., [1985] A.C. 191 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 47].

Price v. Mann, [1942] 1 All E.R. 453 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Peel, In The Goods of (1870), L.R. 2 P. & D. 46, refd to. [para. 70].

Fish, In Re; Ingham v. Rayner, [1894] 2 Ch. 83 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children v. Scottish National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, [1915] A.C. 207 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 77].

Doe d. Spicer v. Lea (1809), 11 East 312, refd to. [para. 78].

Prenn v. Simmonds, [1971] 1 W.L.R. 1381 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 81].

Sudbrook Trading Estate Ltd. v. Eggleton, [1983] 1 A.C. 444 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 82].

Garston v. Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assurance Society, [1996] 1 W.L.R. 834, refd to. [para. 83].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Megarry, Robert E., Case Note, Hankey v. Clavering, (1943), 59 L.Q.R. 17, p. 18 [para. 49].

Summers, Robert S., Statutes and Con­tracts as Founts of Formal Reasoning, Essays for Patrick Atiyah (1991), p. 71 et seq. [para. 47].

Counsel:

John Cherryman, Q.C., and Kenneth Munro, for the appellants;

Nicholas Patten, Q.C., and Tom Leech, for the respondents.

Agents:

Manches & Co., for the appellants;

Nabarro Nathanson, for the respondents.

This case was heard on January 20, 1997, before Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann and Lord Clyde of the House of Lords. The decision of the House was given on May 21, 1997, when the following speeches were delivered:

Lord Goff of Chieveley, dissenting - see paragraphs 1 to 26;

Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, dissenting - see paragraphs 27 to 36;

Lord Steyn - see paragraphs 37 to 55;

Lord Hoffmann - see paragraphs 56 to 84;

Lord Clyde - see paragraphs 85 to 92.