London Borough of Haringey v Ahmed & Anor

An agency relationship cannot be inferred merely because one spouse has historically arranged family accommodation. It requires mutual assent that the alleged agent may affect the other spouse’s legal relations with third parties. The usual indicators include authority, fiduciary responsibility and a degree of control by the principal.

A tenancy is surrendered by operation of law where the parties’ unequivocal conduct is inconsistent with its continuance. Ratification cannot revive an unauthorised agreement after it has been surrendered and no longer exists. In an Article 8 possession case, a public landlord’s right to recover and allocate social housing ordinarily provides a strong case for eviction, subject to a lawful and proportionate balancing exercise.

The Council sought possession of a property occupied by Ms Ahmed and her family. In 1988, Ms Ahmed’s husband signed a proposed joint tenancy naming her, but she did not sign. Nine days later he and his mother signed a second joint tenancy. The judge held that the husband had acted as Ms Ahmed’s agent under the first agreement, so that the first tenancy remained subsisting.

The Chancery Division dismissed the possession claim: [2016] EWHC 1257 (Ch). The Council appealed, contending that there was no evidential basis for agency and that the first tenancy had in any event been surrendered. Ms Ahmed relied alternatively on ratification, absence of surrender, and Article 8 proportionality.

1. Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed. Hamblen LJ, with whom Lewison LJ agreed, held that the trial judge’s agency finding lacked a proper evidential basis. Although assent to agency may be implied, the evidence showed only that Mr Ahmed arranged accommodation for the family. Ms Ahmed neither knew of nor participated in the relevant accommodation decisions. That did not establish her assent to his authority to contract for her, bind her to a joint tenant’s obligations, or create the usual incidents of agency: UBS AG (London Branch) v Kommunale Wasserwerke Leipzig GmbH [2017] EWCA Civ 1567.

2. The appellate court was entitled to interfere because the critical finding of agency was unsupported by the primary facts and evidence. The conclusion was not one a reasonable judge could reach on the material found.

3. Assuming no agency or ratification, the first agreement gave Mr Ahmed a sole tenancy. By signing the second agreement with his mother as joint tenant, he unequivocally relinquished his right to sole possession. The Council unequivocally accepted that surrender by granting the second tenancy. The first tenancy consequently ended by operation of law, applying Artworld Financial Corporation v Safaryan [2009] EWCA Civ 303.

4. Ms Ahmed could not ratify the first agreement in 2014. Ratification requires the relevant unauthorised act still to exist. The first agreement had been surrendered and terminated in 1988, long before the asserted ratification. The delay of more than 26 years reinforced that conclusion.

5. The Article 8 challenge failed. The judge had considered the length and circumstances of occupation, disability and the asserted assurance. He was entitled to give substantial weight to the Council’s need to recover and allocate the four-bedroom social property. His proportionality conclusion was open to him and disclosed no error of law under European Convention on Human Rights Article 8.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the Council’s appeal and dismissed Ms Ahmed’s cross-appeal: [2017] EWCA Civ 1861.
• Chancery Division: Dismissed the Council’s possession claim, holding that Ms Ahmed was a joint secure tenant under the first agreement: [2016] EWHC 1257 (Ch).