Share it

On appeal from: [2013] EWCA Civ 12.

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal brought by the appellant challenging the Court of Appeal’s decision to follow Hammersmith and Fulham LBC v Monk [1992] AC 478, which states that a notice to quit given by one of a number of joint periodic tenants is effective to terminate the tenancy. The appellant argued that following the rule would be a wrongful infringement of his rights under the ECHR, art 8 or art 1 of the first protocol.

The Court stated that although the decision in Monk is harsh, it would be a harsh result for the other tenants and the landlord if the rule was not so strict. It also stated that the appellant had lost his property right as a result of the bargain that he himself had made in the agreement which created the property and his tenancy. It also stated that, in regards to his claim under Art 8, his rights were accorded full respect given that the tenancy was determined under the agreed contractual terms, and the Court would have to be satisfied that the respondent was entitled to evict him and allow him to raise a claim that it was disproportionate before it issued a Court order for the eviction.

For judgment, please download: [2014] UKSC 63
For Court’s press summary, please download: Court’s Press Summary
For a non-PDF version of the judgment, please visit: BAILII