Supreme Court to hear two key housing cases next week

The Supreme Court will next week hold a hearing in two key housing cases, one on notices to quit given by joint periodic tenants and the other on evictions from temporary accommodation provided under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996.

In the case of Sims v Dacorum Borough Council the court will consider the effect of notices to quit given by joint periodic tenants. The key issues are:

  • Is the rule in Hammersmith & Fulham LBC v Monk [1992] 1 A.C. 478 (the effect of which is that - absent a term of the tenancy to the contrary - a notice to quit given by one of a number of joint periodic tenants is effective to terminate the tenancy) compatible with Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights?
  • If it is not compatible, should Monk be reversed so that a joint tenant’s notice to quit is not effective to determine the tenancy?

The background to the case was that Michael Sims (the appellant) and his wife were joint periodic secure tenants of a three-bedroom house owned by Dacorum.

When the couple separated, Mrs Sims left the property and gave notice to quit to the council which – following the Monk ruling – had the effect of terminating the tenancy.

Dacorum obtained a possession order against Mr Sims. He appealed, arguing that the rule in Monk was incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR.

A deputy district judge sitting at Watford County Court rejected Mr Sims’ arguments. The case ‘leapfrogged’ to the Court of Appeal, which concluded that it was bound by the House of Lords’ decision in Monk and dismissed the appeal. It also refused permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The key issues in R (on the application of ZH and CN) v London Borough of Newham and London Borough of Lewisham meanwhile are:

  • Whether temporary accommodation provided under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 to an applicant for assistance on the basis of homelessness, pursuant to a local authority’s interim duty to house such an applicant while the authority makes further enquiries, constitutes a "premises occupied as a dwelling under a licence" for the purposes of s. 3(2B) Protection from Eviction Act 1977; and
  • Whether Article 8 ECHR requires that, before a public authority evicts an individual from his/her home, the authority must obtain a court order.

In the case against Lewisham, CN was born on 3 August 1994 to his mother, JN. From November 2011 JN and her husband and family occupied temporary accommodation provided by the council, pursuant to its interim duty.

On 15 December 2011 Lewisham notified JN and her family that it had concluded that the family were ineligible for assistance and required them to leave the temporary accommodation.

The family applied for a number of further reviews and assessments, extending the process. On 4 May 2012 CN applied for judicial review of Lewisham’s decision.

In the case against Newham, ZH was born on 23 March 2012 to his mother and litigation friend, FI. On 7 September 2012 FI was provided with temporary accommodation by the council, pursuant to its interim duty.

Newham notified FI on 19 February 2013 that it had concluded that FI was ineligible for assistance and required them to leave their temporary accommodation by 18 March 2013, later extended to 21 March 2013.

On 18 March 2013 ZH applied for judicial review of Newham’s decision. ZH’s claim was transferred to the Court of Appeal to be heard with CN’s claim.

The Court of Appeal ruled in July 2013 that Article 8 did not require possession proceedings to be brought before eviction of the individual from their home.

The cases will be heard by seven justices of the Supreme Court – Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Carnwath, Lord Wilson, Lord Hodge – from 23 to 26 June.

 

See also: Prayers answered – Andy Lane and Dean Underwood on the Sims case at the Court of Appeal

See also: Arden Chambers on the CN and ZH cases in the Court of Appeal