Crawley BC v Ure 1996

Crawley BC v Ure [1996] 1 QB 13

Landlord and tenant; one joint tenant giving notice to quit without consulting the other

Facts

Mr and Mrs Ure were joint tenants of a council flat. Mrs Ure left and applied to the council for accommodation as a homeless person. They advised her to give notice to quit to terminate the tenancy. She did so without consulting Mr Ure. A possession order was served upon Mr Ure. Mr Ure appealed against the possession order.

Issues

Mr Ure argued that in failing to consult him, his wife had committed a breach of trust because a joint tenancy amounted to a trust for sale under s36 Law of Property Act 1925,with each tenant being both trustee and beneficiary. Under s26(3) Law of Property Act 1925 he claimed his wife was under a duty to consult him prior to giving notice. Further, he argued, the council had procured a breach of trust by advising Mrs Ure to give notice. The council argued a periodic tenancy is not a capital asset and cannot, therefore, be held on trust for sale. Even if it was a trust for sale, the trust only persists if both tenants wish it to continue. S26(3) only applies to positive acts, and the giving of notice to quit is not a positive act, but a proclamation that one tenant no longer wishes the tenancy to continue at the end of the term.

Decision/Outcome

Notice to quit given by one joint tenant without the consent of the other was effective to terminate the tenancy. Although the tenancy did amount to a trust for sale, s26(3) did not apply to the giving of notice to quit because this was not, in substance, a positive act but merely an intimation that the tenant did not wish the tenancy to continue.