Mayor etc. of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham v Monk (A.P.)

The House of Lords held that, at common law, a contractual periodic tenancy granted to two or more joint tenants can be terminated by an appropriate notice to quit given by any one of them without the concurrence of the others. The court applied ordinary contractual principles and historical authorities (notably Doe d. Aslin v. Summersett) and rejected the argument that the Law of Property Act 1925 (section 36(1)) or the trustee status of legal joint tenants prevented a single joint tenant from serving an effective notice. The court also rejected an argument based on the particular wording of the tenancy agreement and concluded that any breach of trust between joint tenants does not nullify the notice as against the landlord.

This was an appeal from an order of the Court of Appeal affirming an order for possession made after the respondent local authority treated a notice to quit, served by one of two joint weekly tenants, as terminating the periodic tenancy. The appellant, Mr Monk, and Mrs Powell held a weekly joint tenancy terminable by four weeks' notice. Mrs Powell left the flat and, without Mr Monk's knowledge or consent, gave notice to quit; the authority accepted the notice and began possession proceedings. At first instance Judge Roger Cooke held the notice ineffective and dismissed the authority's claim; the Court of Appeal allowed the authority's appeal and ordered possession. The appellant sought review in the House of Lords.

The issues framed were (i) whether at common law a periodic tenancy held by two or more joint tenants can be determined by a notice to quit given by one joint tenant without the concurrence of the others, (ii) whether the Law of Property Act 1925 and the resulting trust for sale of legal joint estates changed that position, and (iii) whether the specific terms of the tenancy required notice by both tenants. The House of Lords analysed early authorities and leading cases (including Doe d. Aslin v. Summersett, Leek & Moorlands Building Society v. Clark and Greenwich LBC v. McGrady), reviewed the development of the periodic tenancy from tenancy at will, and applied ordinary contractual principles. It concluded that continuation of a periodic tenancy depends on the will of the individual joint parties and that a single joint tenant may give effective notice. The court further held that the 1925 Act did not alter the legal effect of such a notice as between landlord and tenants, and that any remedy for breach of trust between co-tenants did not invalidate the notice against the landlord.

Relief sought: reversal of the Court of Appeal order and restoration of the County Court decision. Outcome: appeal dismissed and the Court of Appeal order affirmed.

Appeal dismissed. The House of Lords held that, unless the tenancy terms provide otherwise, an appropriate notice to quit given by one joint tenant is effective at common law to determine a periodic tenancy. The Law of Property Act 1925 (section 36(1)) and the trustee status of joint legal owners do not render such a notice ineffective as against the landlord, although it may give rise to inter se claims between the joint tenants.

County Court (West London) — Judge Roger Cooke held the notice ineffective and dismissed the landlord's claim; Court of Appeal (12 October 1990) (61 P. & C.R. 414) allowed the landlord's appeal and ordered possession; House of Lords ([1991] UKHL 6) affirmed the Court of Appeal and dismissed the appellant's petition.