Notting Hill Housing Trust v Brackley [2001] EWCA Civ 601
The ending of a tenancy by a joint tenant without the consent of the other tenant under TOLATA.
Facts
A married couple held a periodic tenancy on a property as joint tenants, which could be terminated with the provision of four months notice. Subsequently, the wife vacated the property and, without her husband’s knowledge, gave notice of a desire to terminate the tenancy to the property’s landlord. The husband submitted this notice ought be invalidated as he had not consented to it, whilst the landlord sought to rely on the notice to quit so as to regain possession. The husband submitted that the joint tenancy amounted to a trust for land and thus that his wife had breached this trust when she provided the notice (and thus exercised a function) without consulting him as a beneficiary of the trust, in violation of the Trusts of Land Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, s. 11.
Issues
Whether the ending of a joint tenancy by one of the tenants without consulting the other tenant amounts to the exercise of a function, prohibited under s. 11 of TOLATA.
Decision/Outcome
The Court of Appeal found that one of two joint tenants may give notice to end the joint tenancy without obtaining the permission of the co-tenant first, as this action did not amount to the exercise of a function under TOLATA, which would require permission. Rather, the notice amounted to an indication of a desire to cease involvement in the tenancy, and to find otherwise would represent an extension of the term ‘function’ in property law. Moreover, the Court viewed that this was the correct application of existing laws and were it unfair, then it fell to Parliament to alter the law.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case note accurately describes the facts and outcome of Notting Hill Housing Trust v Brackley [2001] EWCA Civ 601. The Court of Appeal’s ruling that a single joint tenant may serve a valid notice to quit without the consent of the other joint tenant remains good law. The principle has been consistently applied in subsequent cases, including Harrow LBC v Qazi [2003] UKHL 43 and McCann v United Kingdom (2008) 47 EHRR 40, where human rights arguments under Article 8 ECHR were raised but ultimately did not displace the common law position on unilateral notices to quit in the residential context. The Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA) remains in force unamended in the relevant respects. Parliament has not intervened to alter the position described. The article is therefore broadly accurate and up to date, though readers should be aware that the human rights dimension of unilateral notices to quit has been extensively litigated since 2001, and the compatibility of the rule with Article 8 ECHR has been confirmed by the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights.
