header-logo header-logo

A proportionate response

05 December 2014 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 7633 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail
nicholas-dobson

Nicholas Dobson reports on a Supreme Court ruling on terminating a joint tenancy

“The past,” observed LP Hartley in his successfully filmed 1953 novel, The Go Between, “is a foreign country: they do things differently there”.

Often, perhaps, but not always. For, although legal life was undoubtedly rather different in December 1991, pre-the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998), when the House of Lords handed down its decision in Hammersmith and Fulham LBC v Monk [1992] 1 AC 478, [1992] 1 All ER 1, the Supreme Court recently upheld the principle established in that case.

This was that, where a joint tenancy is periodic and terminable by a notice to quit, the common law rule is that (subject to any contractual term to the contrary) the tenancy will be validly determined by service on the landlord of a notice to quit by only one of the joint tenants.

The recent case in question was Sims v Dacorum Borough Council [2014] UKSC 63, [2014] All ER (D) 126 (Nov), judgment in which was given

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll