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

The unilateral service of an appropriate notice to quit by one joint periodic tenant terminates the tenancy as between the landlord and tenants without the concurrence of the other joint tenants.

Statutory consequences of termination do not alter this common-law rule. The Law of Property Act 1925 does not prevent a joint tenant from giving effective notice, though a breach of trust claim may lie between co‑tenants.

The appeal asked whether a periodic tenancy granted to joint tenants can be terminated by a notice to quit served by one joint tenant without the consent of the others. The tenancy in question was a weekly periodic tenancy given to two cohabiting tenants. One tenant served notice without the other's knowledge. The County Court held the notice ineffective. The Court of Appeal allowed possession to the landlord. This House considered historical authorities, later cases and the effect of the Law of Property Act 1925 and concluded the notice was effective. The central question was whether common law or post‑1925 trust principles require concurrence of all joint tenants to terminate a periodic tenancy.

1. Overall disposition: The appeal is dismissed and the order of the Court of Appeal is affirmed. The notice to quit given by one joint periodic tenant was effective to determine the tenancy as between landlord and tenants (operative outcome).
2. Principle: A periodic tenancy continues only so long as it is the will of the parties that it continue. That will may be negatived by any one joint tenant by giving appropriate notice at the relevant time. The tenancy therefore terminates if one joint tenant validly serves notice (ratio decidendi).
3. Authority and history: The court reviewed long‑standing authorities beginning with Doe d. Aslin v. Summersett and related 19th century cases which treated a periodic tenancy as continuing only while all parties are willing. Those authorities support the rule that notice by one joint holder ends the tenancy as to the whole; they were applied and followed.
4. Post‑1925 trusts: The Law of Property Act 1925 and the resulting statutory trust for joint legal owners does not alter the contractual relationship between landlord and tenants so as to make a notice by one joint tenant ineffective. Any breach of trust between co‑tenants is a separate matter between them and does not nullify the notice as against the landlord.
5. Statutory consequences: The existence of statutory tenure or rights that might follow a landlord's notice does not affect the common‑law question whether a tenant's unilateral notice is effective. Statutory protection for tenants normally depends on action by landlords, not unilateral notices by tenants.
6. Application to facts: Applying the principles, the House found the notice served by the co‑tenant was effective to determine the tenancy and dismissed the appellant's arguments that (a) earlier authorities required concurrence, (b) the 1925 Act changed the position, or (c) the terms of the tenancy required dual notice.
7. Order and costs: The Court of Appeal order for possession affirmed. Costs questions were dealt with in the parliamentary proceedings.

• Court of Appeal: Allowed the landlord's appeal and ordered possession (reported at (1990) 61 P. & C.R. 414).
• County Court (West London): Judge Roger Cooke held the tenant's unilateral notice ineffective and dismissed the landlord's claim (as recited in this judgment).