London Borough Of Hounslow v Martin-Samos

Where a joint secure tenancy is terminated by notice given by one joint tenant, the other joint tenant cannot thereafter claim the tenancy as a secure tenancy. The Court of Appeal treated Hammersmith & Fulham LBC v Monk [1992] 1 AC 478 as binding on that issue.

Article 8 may apply to possession proceedings concerning a home. It does not, however, confer an indefinite right to remain where the occupier has had a reasonable period of grace, occupies accommodation substantially larger than needed, and the local authority offers suitable alternative accommodation. Permission to appeal requires a real prospect of success.

Hounslow obtained an order for possession of the applicant’s three-bedroom local-authority home from Staines County Court. The county court found that the parties had entered into a joint tenancy in May 1997, that the later June document was incomplete, and that Mrs Martin-Samos’s notice terminated the joint tenancy.

Mr Martin-Samos sought permission to appeal, arguing that the June agreement made him sole tenant and that eviction would breach Article 8. He also relied on improvements to the property, his age and poor health, and sought a stay. The central questions were whether there was a real prospect of successfully challenging the tenancy findings or the Article 8 conclusion.

1. Permission and tenancy. The application for permission to appeal was refused. The county court judge had heard the witnesses and was entitled to conclude that the May agreement created a joint tenancy and that the June document was incomplete. There was no real prospect of successfully challenging those factual findings.
2. As a matter of law, a joint tenancy was terminated when Mrs Martin-Samos gave notice terminating it. Mr Martin-Samos was consequently no longer entitled to a secure tenancy. That conclusion was established by the binding authority of Hammersmith & Fulham LBC v Monk [1992] 1 AC 478.
3. Article 8. Hounslow and the Court of Appeal were public authorities, and Article 8 applied to the possession proceedings. The court referred to Harrow LBC v Qazi [2001] EWCA Civ 1834 as confirming that position. The statutory framework had not yet been considered by the Court of Appeal in that Article 8 context.
4. Article 8 did not give the applicant a realistic prospect of establishing an indefinite right to remain. Relevant circumstances included that he lived alone in a three-bedroom flat, had already remained for fifteen months after termination, had not established the claimed value of improvements, had received a further three months after judgment, and had been allowed 28 days to give up possession. Hounslow had also assured the court that it wished to provide alternative accommodation, and recognised that he was probably in priority need.
5. The application was refused. A copy of the transcript was to be sent to the applicant at public expense.

• Staines County Court: His Honour Judge Parry ordered possession of 124 Burns Avenue within 20 days on 20 February 2002.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was refused. The possession order was left undisturbed.