Hammersmith and Fulham LBC v Monk
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Hammersmith & Fulham London Borough Council v Monk | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Full case name | Mayor etc. of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (Respondents) v. Monk (A.P.) (Appellant) |
| Decided | 5 December 1991 |
| Citation | [1991] UKHL 6 |
| Case history | |
| Prior actions | [1991] 61 P. & C.R. 414 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Lord Bridge of Harwich; Lord Brandon of Oakbrook; Lord Ackner; Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle; Lord Browne-Wilkinson |
| Keywords | |
| Joint tenancy | |
Hammersmith & Fulham LBC v Monk [1991] UKHL 6 is a House of Lords case concerning joint tenancies.
Mr Monk and Mrs Powell had a weekly tenancy of a flat at 35 Niton Street, London SW6. Their landlord was Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council ("the council"). In 1988, Mr Monk and Mrs Powell fell out and Mrs Powell left. She asked the council for alternative accommodation and they agreed to re-house her if she would terminate the tenancy of 35 Niton Street. She gave four weeks' notice to end the tenancy without Mr Monk's knowledge or consent.
The council notified Mr Monk and sought to evict him. He declined to leave.[1]
Law
In a joint tenancy that is not a fixed term tenancy, notice to quit served by one joint tenant terminates the tenancy for all tenants.[2][3] In a subsequent decision (Sims v Dacorum Borough Council) the Supreme Court confirmed that this does not violate any tenant's human rights.