Hammersmith and Fulham LBC v Monk [1992] 1 A.C. 478
The determination of joint tenancies by a single tenant.
Facts
Monk and Powell held a joint tenancy over a property. Following the termination of their relationship Powell desired to end her tenancy and was given a new tenancy by the local council on the condition that her existing tenancy be determined and ended. Thus, the tenant provided the council with a notice to quit, allowing them to seek possession of the house. She subsequently sought to withdraw her notice, but the Council proceeded to possess the property anyway, issuing a notice to Monk that he ought vacate the property.
Issues
Whether one tenant could end a joint tenancy without the consent of the other joint tenant.
Decision/Outcome
The Court held that the tenant’s right to occupy the original property was grounds for few protections and that strong security of tenure did not stem from a joint periodic tenancy. In this case, it suffices for one of the tenants to give notice to quit, permission from both is not necessary. Further, the continuation of a joint tenancy requires all of the joint tenants to desire its continuation. Here, the Court viewed that the matter was relatively straightforward, utilising the analogy of contract law to state that should determination of a contract rest upon the consent of all signatories, it supposes that in the absence of one party’s consent, the other signatories have effectively entered into an indefinite contractual obligation. Such a supposition is unreasonable and does not reflect the likely intentions of the parties at the time of contracting. The same holds in application to tenancy contracts, and so the desire for determination by one joint tenant suffices for the ending of the whole tenancy.
Words: 293
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Hammersmith and Fulham LBC v Monk [1992] 1 AC 478, in which the House of Lords held that one joint tenant may serve a valid notice to quit without the consent of the other joint tenant, thereby bringing the entire joint tenancy to an end.
However, readers should be aware of a significant subsequent development. In Pinnock v Manchester City Council [2010] UKSC 45 and Manchester City Council v Pinnock (No 2) [2011] UKSC 6, the Supreme Court held that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for the home) requires courts to have the power to assess the proportionality of a possession order, even where the landlord has an otherwise unqualified right to possession. This principle was further developed in Hounslow LBC v Powell [2011] UKSC 8. These cases do not overturn Monk, but they mean that in appropriate cases a defendant may raise Article 8 as a defence to possession proceedings brought following a unilateral notice to quit. Additionally, the Law Commission has previously considered reform in this area, and students should be aware that the broader question of whether unilateral termination of joint tenancies is compatible with occupiers’ human rights remains a live issue in academic and policy debate. The core rule from Monk remains good law.
