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.
Issue
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.
Held
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 21 March 2026
This case summary remains accurate as of 2025. Notting Hill Housing Trust v Brackley [2001] EWCA Civ 601 continues to represent good law on the ability of one joint tenant to serve a unilateral notice to quit without the consent of the other joint tenant, and on the scope of section 11 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. The article correctly characterises both the facts and the Court of Appeal’s reasoning. Readers should note that the broader issue of unilateral notice to quit by one joint tenant in the context of assured tenancies and human rights arguments was subsequently considered in Harrow London Borough Council v Qazi [2003] UKHL 43 and later cases, and Parliament has not legislated to reverse the common law position described here. The principle stated in Brackley therefore remains applicable, though students researching this area should also be aware of the developing case law on Article 8 ECHR and possession proceedings more generally, which does not alter the core contractual and TOLATA analysis but forms relevant context in public sector housing cases.
