Notices to Quit, Protective legislation and the Joint Tenancy Doctrine
| Author | Chris Rodgers |
| Published date | 01 July 1985 |
| Date | 01 July 1985 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1985.tb00854.x |
460
THE
MODERN
LAW
REVIEW
[Vol.
48
NOTICES
TO
QUIT, PROTECTIVE
LEGISLATION
AND
THE
JOINT
TENANCY
DOCTRINE
THE
joint tenancy doctrine has recently been enjoying something
of a renaissance. Originally laid down by Lord Tenterden in
Doe
d.
Adin
v.
Summerseft,’
it was recently reformulated by Lord
Donaldson
M.R.
thus; “it is clear law that if there is to be a
surrender of a joint tenancy
. . .
then all [joint tenants] must agree
to the surrender.
If
there is to be a renewal, which is the position
at the end of each period of a periodic tenancy, then again all must
concur.”* On this basis it has recently been held that notice to quit
a periodic tenancy given by one of two joint lessees is valid3 and
that notice to quit given by two out of four landlords holding as
joint tenants on trust for sale is also valid.4 The recent decisions of
the Court of Appeal in
Sykes
v.
Land:
and of Nourse
J.
in
Featherstone
v. have drawn attention to one remaining
area of doubt. Must all joint lessees of a periodic tenancy also join
together to serve counter notices claiming security of tenure under
protective legislation?
Both decisions turn on the meaning of section
2(1)
of the
Agricultural Holdings (Notices to Quit) Act 1977, which provides
that to claim the protection of the 1977 Act the “tenant” must
within one month following notice to quit serve a counter notice.
If
he does
so
the notice to quit cannot take effect without the consent
of an agricultural land tribunal. It is a common device for landlords
to lease land to a partnership (including themselves), the partners
holding the tenancy as joint lessees. The landlord could then avoid
conferring security of tenure by serving notice to quit, and simply
refusing to join in service
of
the requisite counter notice. This
practice seemed to be based on sound authority, for in
Newman
v.
KeedweZZ‘
Fox
J.
expressly held that one out of two joint lessees
could
not
serve a valid counter notice, the concurrence of all joint
of
freedom
of
movement
of
persons throughout the Community. Unlike in
Forcheri,
the
Court stresses that the case before the Belgian court, leading to its ruling, concerned a
clearly delimited form
of
education, namely “vocational training”, which it defined widely
to include any form
of
education which provided a qualification
or
the particular skill
required for the exercise
of
a particular profession, vocation
or
job, whatever the age
and the level
of
training
of
the pupils
or
students and even
if
the course included an
element
of
general education. Concretely the court suggested that the plaintiff in the
Belgian proceedings, a French national who had gone to Belgium in order to study “the
art
of
strip cartoons” at an Art College, should not have been charged higher registration
fees than Beleian nationals.
(1830) 1
B’
&
Ad.
135.
*
Greenwich
L.B.C.
v.
McGrady
(1982) 81
L.G.R.
288, 290.
See also the discussion in
Leek
&
Moorlandr Buildinp Society
v.
Clarke
119521 2
Q.B.
788.
--
’
Greenwich L.
B.C.
v.
McGrudy (supra).
Parsons
v.
Parsons
(1983) 269
E.G.
634.
And see
Annen
v.
Raffee
(1985) 273
E.G.
(1984) 271
E.G.
1264.
(1985) 273
E.G.
193.
(1977) 244
E.G.
469.
Although a landlord cannot covenant with himself, the House
of Lords ruled in
Rye
v.
Rye
[I9621
A.C.
496
that a landlord could validly let land to
himself and his co-partners.
501.
To continue reading
Request your trial