Human rights don't protect joint tenant from other's notice to quit
The eviction of a tenant from a house after his co-tenant had given notice to quit did not infringe his human rights, the UK Supreme Court ruled yesterday.
Seven judges unanimously dismissed an appeal by Michael Sims from a decision of the Court of Appeal to uphold an order for possession in favour of Dacorum Borough Council, of the house he and his wife Sharon had rented from the council. The tenancy agreement provided in clause 100 that it could be validly brought to an end by one of the tenants serving notice to quit on the landlord. The couple had separated and Mrs Sims served a notice under clause 100. Under clause 101 the council could decide to allow Mr Sims to remain in the house, but after considering his case it decided not to.
Mr Sims contended that to evict him would infringe his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions under article 1 of Protocol 1 (A1P1), and/or his right to respect for his private life and his home under article 8, of the European Convention on Human Rights. However the court rejected both arguments.
Lord Neuberger (the President), with whom Lady Hale, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lord Toulson and Lord Hodge agreed, said in relation to A1P1 that the way in which Mr Sims was deprived of his property was specifically provided for in the agreement which created the property, that is, his interest in the tenancy. He lost this property right as a result of the bargain that he himself made. Clause 100 was not irrational or so unreasonable as to offend the right to enjoy the property concerned, nor had the council unfairly or irrationally operated clause 101.
He added: "When one of two joint periodic tenants serves a notice to quit, someone’s interest has to suffer; if the position were otherwise than it is under [Hammersmith and Fulham LBC v Monk [1992] AC 478], there would be a harsh result for the other joint tenant or for the landlord."
Mr Sims’ article 8 rights had also been accorded full respect, given that (1) his tenancy was determined in accordance with agreed contractual terms, (2) he received the benefit of clause 101, (3) by statute he could not be evicted without a court order, (4) the court would have to be satisfied that the council was entitled to evict him, and (5) the court could not make such an order without permitting him to raise a claim that it would be disproportionate to evict him.