Didn't You Get My Letter?

Lord Bingham identified certainty, clarity and predictability as key constituents of the Rule of Law. His portrait gazes down in the Supreme Court. Certainty, clarity and predictability are not so warmly espoused by the current President, Baroness Hale.

The recent case of Newcastle Upon Tyne NHS Foundation Trust v Sandi Haywood decided that notice of termination of her employment was not given when the letter of dismissal was delivered to her address, but only when it had actually been received by her and she either read or had reasonable opportunity of reading it. The five judges in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, who were of the opinion that Sandi Haywood should get her pension, were Lady Hale, Lady Black, Lady Justice Arden, Mrs Justice Proudman and Lord Wilson.

The powerful dissenting voices were Lord Justice Lewison in the Court of Appeal and in the Supreme Court, Lord Briggs, with whom Lord Lloyd-Jones agreed.

Lewison LJ relied on, amongst other authorities, Lord Abbott CJ in Walter v Haynes (1824) "Where a letter, fully and particularly directed to a person at his usual place of residence, is proved to have been put into the Post Office, this is equivalent to proof of a delivery into the hands of that person; because it is a safe and reasonable presumption that is reaches its destination. If a letter is sent by the post, it is prima facie proof, until the contrary be proved that, the party to whom it is addressed received it in due course."

Scott J in Stephenson v Orca accepted a submission that "the time of delivery in the ordinary course of post could not depend on whether or not the premises to which the letter was addressed were, when the postman arrived, occupied or empty".

Lord Denning in Stidolph v American School in London Educational Trust Limited said, "In any case, I do not think that a tenant can avoid the effects of a notice like this, which is properly sent by registered post to him, by saying that he did not take it out of the envelope or read it. Obviously, he would not get out of it by saying that he destroyed the envelope without opening it. Nor does he do so by saying that he did not read it." In Stidolph, Edmund Davies LJ put the point more...