## Facts

- Mr. Monk and Ms. Powell held a joint periodic tenancy with Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council.
- Without Mr. Monk’s agreement, Ms. Powell alone served a notice to quit to the council.
- The key question was whether a notice to quit from a single joint tenant could end the entire joint tenancy.

## Issues

1. Whether a notice to quit given by one joint tenant, without the agreement of the other, is sufficient to terminate the whole joint periodic tenancy.
2. How the rules governing joint tenancies differ from those relating to tenancies in common, particularly regarding termination.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that a notice to quit served by one joint tenant is sufficient to end the entire joint periodic tenancy.
- The court reasoned that joint tenants act as a single entity for the purposes of the tenancy, so the act of one binds all.
- The tenancy, and thus the lease, was terminated by a valid notice given by one joint tenant.

## Legal Principles

- In a joint tenancy, the four unities (possession, interest, title, and time) are required, and there is a right of survivorship.
- Any joint tenant unilaterally serving a valid notice to quit may terminate the entire periodic tenancy.
- In contrast, in a tenancy in common, each party holds a distinct share, and a notice to quit by one does not affect the interests of the others.
- The rule ensures clarity for landlords and prevents prolonged uncertainty arising from potential disputes between joint tenants.

## Conclusion

The decision in Hammersmith & Fulham LBC v Monk established that a notice to quit by any one joint tenant immediately determines the joint periodic tenancy for all tenants, illustrating the collective nature of joint tenancies and distinguishing them from tenancies in common. This clarity assists both landlords and co-tenants in understanding their rights and the potential consequences of individual actions within joint tenancies.

Hammersmith & Fulham LBC v Monk [1992] 1 AC 478