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.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary remains broadly accurate. Hammersmith and Fulham LBC v Monk [1992] 1 AC 478 is still good law for the proposition that one joint tenant may serve a valid notice to quit without the consent of the other joint tenant, thereby bringing the entire periodic tenancy to an end.
However, readers should be aware of important subsequent developments. In Crawley BC v Ure [1996] QB 13 the Court of Appeal confirmed and applied Monk. More significantly, the human rights compatibility of this rule was considered in Harrow LBC v Qazi [2003] UKHL 43 and later in Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45 and Hounslow LBC v Powell [2011] UKSC 8. The Supreme Court in those cases confirmed that Article 8 ECHR (the right to respect for home) may be engaged where a public authority seeks possession, and that a court must be able to consider proportionality in such cases, though possession will be proportionate in the overwhelming majority of cases. The core Monk principle itself was not overturned, but it now operates within this Article 8 framework where the landlord is a public authority.
Students should also note that in the context of domestic abuse, the law has evolved. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 does not directly reverse Monk, but practitioners and policymakers have scrutinised whether the rule can be misused by an abusive partner to end a joint tenancy. This remains an area of ongoing policy concern, though the core legal rule from Monk stands.
