Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
View all articles
Authors

Joint Tenancies and Notices to Quit after Leeds City Council v Price

Sep 29, 2018, 17:19 PM
The purpose of this article is to re-examine Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Monk [1992] 1 AC 478, [1992] 1 All ER 1 and the cases that have followed it, and consider whether Price has created the opportunity to challenge these decisions by reference to domestic or European Convention principles
Slug : joint-tenancies-and-notices-to-quit-after-leeds-city-council-v-price
Meta Title : Joint Tenancies and Notices to Quit after Leeds City Council v Price
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Sep 4, 2006, 10:20 AM
Article ID : 89155

Martin Iller, Solicitor and Deputy District Judge. On marriage or relationship breakdown joint tenants of rented accommodation might assume that they continue to enjoy security of tenure. However, this security is fragile once a spouse or partner leaves and seeks re-housing. If that individual gives notice to quit, even though this is without the knowledge or consent of the other, the tenancy will come to an end and that tenant will have no defence to a possession claim. Not only that, the notice will frequently have been encouraged by the landlord, who, faced with a tenant who seeks re-housing (often in circumstances where domestic violence is alleged) lacks the resources or the inclination to provide separate homes for each portion of the broken family. Although this would appear to go against everything that has been said about fair allocation of assets in White v White [1998] 2 FLR 310 and Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24, [2006] 1 FLR 1186 the House of Lords, in following nineteenth Century decisions on property law, has left the 'ambushed joint tenant' without security of tenure or, it would seem, any means of redress.

Arguments that the ambushed joint tenant had a defence under Art 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (European Convention) fell on deaf ears in Harrow London Borough Council v Qazi [2003] UKHL 43, [2004] 1 AC 983 (Qazi). However, the House of Lords has recently been called upon to reconsider Qazi in Kay and others v Lambeth London Borough Council; Leeds City Council v Price and others [2006] UKHL 10 (Price). Although Price did not involve an ambushed joint tenant, the decision may have an impact on such cases in the future. The purpose of this article is to re-examine Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Monk [1992] 1 AC 478, [1992] 1 All ER 1 and the cases that have followed it, and consider whether Price has created the opportunity to challenge these decisions by reference to domestic or European Convention principles. See October [2006] Fam Law 877 for the full article.

Categories :
  • Articles
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from