
Briggs and Ranson write that the decision in Khan and another v D’Aubigny ‘has once again forced practitioners to take a closer look at how notices are served, including certain important statutory provisions, the way in which contracts might deem service to have taken place, and the surprisingly elusive definition of the very word “notice”’.
The authors urge practitioners to be ‘meticulous’ in advising clients on the evidentiary standards required, and offer practical advice on what might be suitable.