The right side of the law

In previous articles in Inside Housing (20 June 2008 and 3 April 2009) we covered the issue of human rights challenges in relation to the service of a notice to quit by one joint tenant to another, terminating the tenancy.

The case Wilson v The London Borough of Harrow [2010] High Court is a further human rights challenge - one that failed. The crux of this case was that Mr and Mrs Wilson were joint tenants. Mr Wilson left the matrimonial home but continued to be liable for rent arrears. He was advised by the local authority to serve a notice to quit but, before doing so, to obtain independent legal advice as that would terminate his wife’s interest in the tenancy. He did not obtain independent legal advice and served the notice to quit. His wife remained as a trespasser and proceedings were issued.

His wife was represented by the official solicitor who submitted that the service of the notice to quit and the proceedings were in breach of
Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. They further argued in appeal before the High Court that she had no knowledge of the notice, had not consented to the notice and had not been involved in the decision to serve the notice, therefore, that was a breach of Article 8; the right to respect private and family life.

The High Court dismissed the appeal. It concluded that the local authority’s advice that Mr Wilson should have obtained legal advice before serving notice to quit was all that was necessary. They held that the notice to quit terminated the joint tenancy. This would suggest that human rights arguments are unlikely to defeat this principle.

Scott Greenwood is a partner at Coffin Mew LLP
ScottGreenwood@coffinmew.co.uk

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment