The implications for the sender as a result of serving a non-compliant notice were that it:

Remained bound by the business contract from the date of the defective notice until the date of trial;

Was ordered to pay the recipient’s costs in contesting the termination;
Had to comply with the terms of the business contract despite the dispute.
Had to serve a new notice terminating the business contract.

The court stated that: “if you want to avoid expensive litigation, and the possible loss of a valuable right to break, you must pay close attention to all the requirements of the clause, including the formal requirements, and follow them precisely.”

The attitude of the court was that it could not be a case of almost complying. Either you comply or you don’t. There’s no room for middle ground.

The case concerned a dispute between a landlord and its tenant. For the tenant to end the contract, then under clause 19 of the lease between the parties, the tenant must state in the break notice that the notice was given pursuant to a particular section of legislation.

However, the tenant’s notice merely referred to clause 19, and not to the particular section of legislation. Hence, the dispute arose as to whether the notice was effective.

The landlord resisted the tenant’s notice. The landlord could then keep the tenant in the premises and continue to receive rental income. The landlord succeeded and the tenant’s notice was considered defective.

The outcome
The court held that where a party wishes to terminate a business contract, the notice giving the intention to terminate the contract must comply:

With any strict requirements imposed under the business contract,
Whether the requirements are wording or otherwise.
The notice served by the terminating party did not comply with the terms of the contract. Therefore:

The notice had no effect;
The serving party had not effectively terminated the contract;
The serving party had to remain in the contract from the date of the notice to the date of conclusion at trial.

All is not lost. If it comes to light that a notice terminating the business contract is defective, then there may be practical steps that can be taken, such as:

Serve the notice again, but ensure to comply with the conditions of termination included within the business contract;
Reserve the right to defend the initial notice.

Argue that the receiving party is prevented from its contractual right to a fully compliant notice, either through an implied waiver of the right, lapse of time or some other course of dealing, such as previously accepted defective notices.

How to prepare for trial if the notice is ineffective
If the matter proceeds to trial, the serving party should:

Argue that the recipient understood the notice and that there was no confusion;
Argue that any reasonable reader would have understood the notice;
Argue that the notice was effective given the parties’ relationship developed through the duration of the business contract; 
Rely on any correspondence surrounding termination, particularly correspondence evidencing an intention.
All will depend on the facts of the case, although the court is generally reluctant to enforce defective notices.

Avoiding termination of a business contract – considerations
If a party receives a defective notice, it may wish to resist termination. Base your decision on commercial factors, i.e. is it really worth resisting? If the serving party wants to terminate then the business contract’s continuance is forced. No business relationship that is forced is desirable.

A recipient may claim that the server’s defective notice breaches the business contract. Legally, this is a valid argument. But commercially? Usually it is not worth the paper it’s written on, unless there are potentially substantial damages. In practice, the claim will be for any damages incurred from the first notice to the second, usually effective, notice. There will be few cases where the legal costs outweigh the benefits.

There are two lessons to be learnt from the court’s decision:

Know what your business contract says about pre-conditions to certain rights, notably termination, and ensure you are clear on the business contract’s drafting; 

If you are considering terminating a contract, particularly one where the recipient of the notice is receiving a premium sum, make sure you comply with the pre-conditions or face sanctions. A recipient may resist termination and insist on cost recovery for your own default.

The relevance of the decision to commercial contracts
Most business contracts contain conditions attached to termination. As can be seen, compliance with such conditions is considered strict. This is even so where the oversight has no detrimental effect on the recipient. This is welcome news for lawyers, as it provides certainty to the law, but unwelcome news for the litigant in person or a party thought to be taking the initiative by embarking on the complex task of terminating a business contract on their own accord.

The decision will have a ripple effect to additional terms which impose obligations on a party to a business contract, such as the time, date, and method of delivery of certain documents. We find that most disputes over a business contract boil down to the drafting of particular clauses and a party’s obligations. When drafted correctly, the result of a dispute over a business contract’s terms can usually be foreseen.