Sims v Dacorum Borough Council

Sims v Dacorum Borough Council

The rule in Monk is binding and not incompatible with Article 8 or Article 1 of the First Protocol of the ECHR. The unilateral notice to quit by one joint tenant lawfully terminates the joint tenancy, and there is no interference by the Council with the appellant's rights. The appeal is unarguable and there is no basis for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Parties
Appellant: Michael Sims; Respondent: Dacorum Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal, Application for Permission to Appeal to Supreme Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed, permission to appeal to Supreme Court refused
Legal Topics
Joint Tenancy, Termination of Tenancy, Notice to Quit, Article 8 ECHR, Article 1 First Protocol ECHR, Compatibility of Common Law With ECHR
Property Law Human Rights Law Joint Tenancy Termination of Tenancy Notice to Quit Article 8 ECHR Article 1 First Protocol ECHR Compatibility of Common Law With ECHR

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Sims

Appellant

Dacorum Borough Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal, Application for Permission to Appeal to Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the service of a notice to quit by one joint tenant is effective to terminate a joint secure tenancy under English law
  2. 2 Whether the rule in Monk is compatible with Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of the ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The rule in Monk is binding and not incompatible with Article 8 or Article 1 of the First Protocol of the ECHR. The unilateral notice to quit by one joint tenant lawfully terminates the joint tenancy, and there is no interference by the Council with the appellant's rights. The appeal is unarguable and there is no basis for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed, permission to appeal to Supreme Court refused

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Permission to appeal to Supreme Court refused