Mummery LJ blocks challenge to rule on periodic joint tenancies

Lord Justice Mummery has rejected a human rights challenge to the traditional rules on periodic joint tenancies and said a further appeal before the Supreme Court would be a “waste of publicly-funded resources”.

Michael Sims argued that his wife’s termination of their joint tenancy of a three-bedroom council house in Chipperfield, Hertfordshire, left him with the right to remain there as a sole tenant.

Mummery LJ said the ruling of the House of Lords in Hammersmith and Fulham LBC v Monk [1992] AC 478 had settled the position at common law, making it clear that periodic joint tenancies were terminated automatically where one tenant, without the agreement of the other, served a notice to quit on the landlord.

Counsel for Sims argued that this breached his rights to respect for his home under article 8 of the ECHR and enjoyment of it as one of his possessions under article 1 of the First Protocol.

Dean Underwood (pictured) and Andrew Lane, barristers at Hardwicke Chambers, represented Dacorum Borough Council.

Ruling in Sims v Dacorum BC [2013] EWCA Civ 12 that neither article 8 nor article 1 of the First Protocol were engaged, Mummery LJ described the proposed appeal to the Supreme Court as “unarguable”.

“This has been an issue outstanding for a long time, and cases have been stayed across the country, awaiting this decision,” Underwood said.

“The rule has been applied consistently by the courts for a long time. I think Lord Justice Mummery took such a trenchant view because Sims knew from the outset of the tenancy agreement the bargain he struck when he took it on.

“He was also trying to use human rights arguments to obtain enhanced rights, in this case the sole tenancy of a three-bedroom house.”

He went on: “There is no incompatibility between the rules of English property and contract law relating to the termination of a joint tenancy by one joint tenant and the ECHR.

“I cannot think of a sensible purpose that would be served by the expenditure of yet more public funds (on both sides) on a repeat of this debate before five (or even more) justices of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.”

Lord Mummery dismissed the appeal and refused permission for another appeal, adding that it would be a “waste of the publicly-funded resources of the Supreme Court”. Lord Justice Etherton and Sir Scott Baker agreed with the ruling.

Underwood added that it was “not impossible” that Sims would appeal directly to the Supreme Court.