Sims v Dacorum Borough Council

One joint tenant may determine a joint periodic tenancy by serving notice to quit without the consent or knowledge of the other joint tenant, unless the tenancy agreement provides otherwise.

That rule is compatible with the remaining tenant’s Convention rights where the tenancy was acquired on those terms. If a public authority seeks possession, the occupier must have an opportunity to challenge the proportionality of eviction under Article 8. The notice itself does not infringe the right to respect for the home merely because it places continued occupation at risk.

A local authority granted a husband and wife a joint secure weekly tenancy. Its terms provided that either joint tenant wishing to end their interest had to terminate the whole tenancy, after which the authority would decide whether another joint tenant could remain or receive alternative accommodation.

After the couple separated, the wife served notice to quit. The authority declined the husband’s request for a sole tenancy and obtained a possession order. The county court found the decision lawful and proportionate. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal in [2013] EWCA Civ 12.

The Supreme Court considered whether the rule governing termination by one joint periodic tenant, established in Hammersmith and Fulham LBC v Monk, infringed Article 8 or Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. Lord Neuberger gave the judgment, with which Lady Hale, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lord Toulson and Lord Hodge agreed.

2. The common law rule in Hammersmith and Fulham LBC v Monk remained applicable. Unless the agreement provides otherwise, one joint tenant may determine a joint periodic tenancy by serving notice to quit on the landlord. The consent or knowledge of the other joint tenant is unnecessary. The Housing Act 1985 restricts a landlord’s ability to determine a secure periodic tenancy but does not restrict a tenant’s common law right to serve notice to quit.

3. The Article 1 of the First Protocol claim failed. The appellant acquired his interest on express terms that the other joint tenant could terminate the entire tenancy and that the authority would then decide whether he could remain or receive other accommodation. His loss therefore occurred in the circumstances specifically provided for by the agreement creating the property right. The termination clause was neither irrational nor unreasonable. Any available alternative would prejudice either the departing tenant or the landlord.

4. The authority had considered whether the appellant should remain. The county court properly examined his occupation, the circumstances surrounding the notice, domestic violence, vulnerability, the scarcity of social housing, the authority’s right to reallocate the property and the fairness of its procedure. Its conclusion that possession was proportionate was plainly correct.

5. The Article 8 claim also failed. Under Pinnock v Manchester City Council and Hounslow LBC v Powell, an occupier facing possession proceedings by a public authority may challenge the proportionality of eviction. That safeguard was available and was fully exercised here. The service of notice by the other joint tenant did not itself violate Article 8 merely because it placed occupation of the home at risk.

6. Respect for the appellant’s home was secured because the tenancy ended according to agreed terms, the authority considered whether he could remain, eviction required a court order, domestic entitlement to possession had to be established, and the court could refuse possession if eviction was disproportionate.

1. United Kingdom Supreme Court: Dismissed the appeal and upheld the possession order: [2014] UKSC 63.

2. Court of Appeal: Mummery LJ, Etherton LJ and Sir Scott Baker dismissed the appeal challenging the compatibility of the common law rule with Article 8: [2013] EWCA Civ 12.

3. County Court: Deputy District Judge Wood found the notice effective, the authority’s decision lawful and proportionate, and made an outright possession order.