Supreme Court rejects challenge to rule in Monk on notices to quit: report

The Supreme Court is to reject a challenge to the rule in Monk on notices to quit given by joint periodic tenants, it has been reported.

In the case of Sims v Dacorum Borough Council, which was heard this week, a seven-judge panel was due to consider:

  • 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?

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

When they 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.

Mr Sims lost at both Watford County Court and the Court of Appeal.

According to Cornerstone Barristers, one of whose tenants – Ranjit Bhose QC – appeared for Dacorum, Lord Neuberger announced on the third day of the Supreme Court hearing that the judges were minded to grant Mr Sims permission to appeal but then to dismiss the appeal itself.

The reasons for the Supreme Court’s decision are to be given at a later date.

The outcome in the case of R (on the application of ZH and CN) v London Borough of Newham and London Borough of Lewisham, which was heard by the court at the same time, has yet to be revealed.

This case covers evictions from temporary accommodation under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 and whether authorities must obtain a court order.

See also: Supreme Court to hear two key housing cases next week