Sims v Dacorum Borough Council

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The court held that the common law rule (as stated in Hammersmith and Fulham LBC v Monk) that one joint periodic tenant can validly terminate the tenancy by serving a notice to quit remains applicable to secure tenancies and is not displaced by the Human Rights Act 1998 in the circumstances of this case. The court analysed the tenancy agreement (notably clauses 92, 100 and 101) together with the statutory framework in the Housing Act 1985 (sections 82–84 and Schedule 2) and concluded that the effect of the notice to quit and the council's subsequent decision were within the contractual and statutory scheme.

The court rejected claims under Article 1 of Protocol 1 and Article 8 ECHR. As to A1P1, the court held that the deprivation complained of resulted from the bargain in the tenancy agreement and that neither clause 100 nor the council's exercise of clause 101 was irrational on the facts. As to Article 8, the court held that the tenant had the opportunity to raise proportionality in the domestic court (following Pinnock and Powell), the Deputy District Judge had carefully considered proportionality and the decision to grant possession was one to which she was entitled to come.

This appeal concerned a joint secure weekly tenancy granted to Mr and Mrs Sims and whether the service of a notice to quit by one joint tenant (Mrs Sims) validly terminated the tenancy and justified possession against the other joint tenant (Mr Sims). The tenancy had become secure under the Housing Act 1996 after an introductory period. Mrs Sims served a notice to quit in June 2010 after separation and reports of domestic violence. The council refused Mr Sims's request to transfer the tenancy into his sole name and sought possession. At first instance Deputy District Judge Wood found that Mrs Sims's notice validly terminated the tenancy and made an order for possession. The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Sims's appeal ([2013] EWCA Civ 12). The present appeal to the Supreme Court challenged the continued authority of Monk in light of the Human Rights Act 1998 and argued that Monk’s effect infringed Mr Sims’s rights under Article 8 and A1P1.

The court considered (i) whether the A1P1 claim succeeded given the terms of the tenancy agreement (clauses 92, 100 and 101) and the facts found by the judge; (ii) whether Article 8 required revisiting or displacing the common law rule in Monk; and (iii) whether the Deputy District Judge erred in her proportionality assessment. The court analysed the contractual allocation of risk in the tenancy agreement and concluded that the loss of Mr Sims's tenancy interest flowed from the bargain he had entered into and was not an unlawful deprivation under A1P1. The court also held that Article 8 issues were properly for the domestic court to determine and that the Deputy District Judge had lawfully and proportionately exercised her discretion in making a possession order, giving Mr Sims the opportunity to raise proportionality pursuant to Pinnock and Powell. The court therefore dismissed the appeal.

Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed that, absent statutory or contractually expressed terms to the contrary, the common law rule in Monk that one joint periodic tenant may determine the joint tenancy by notice to quit remains applicable. The court held that Mr Sims’s A1P1 and article 8 claims failed because (a) his loss followed from the contractual terms of the tenancy (clauses 100 and 101) and was not irrational, and (b) the domestic court had properly considered proportionality and reached a conclusion open to it under the authorities (Pinnock, Powell), so there was no human rights incompatibility requiring departure from Monk.

County Court (trial before Deputy District Judge Wood) – order for possession made; Court of Appeal – appeal dismissed [2013] EWCA Civ 12; Supreme Court – appeal dismissed [2014] UKSC 63.