Husband and wife joint periodic tenants of council house – Wife subject to injunction not to disturb husband’s enjoyment of house – Wife purporting to terminate tenancy by notice to quit – Whether notice and subsequent possession proceedings taken by council amounted to contempt of court
The respondent husband and his wife occupied a council house as joint tenants under a monthly tenancy which was at all material times a secure tenancy under the Housing Act 1985. In February 1994 the wife left the house taking the children. In the same month the husband made a county court application ex parte under the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 alleging that the wife had assaulted him and attempted to eject him from the house. He obtained an order whereby the wife was forbidden, inter alia: (i) to ‘harass or otherwise interfere with him’; (ii) to ‘exclude or attempt to exclude’ him from the house. On applying to the council for rehousing, the wife was informed that while it was contrary to council policy to provide accommodation for an existing council tenant, that difficulty could be overcome by her serving on the council an appropriate notice to quit, the concurrence of the other joint tenant, the husband, being unnecessary to determine a periodic tenancy at common law: see Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Monk [1992] 1 EGLR 65. Acting on that advice the wife served a notice dated March 22 1994 stating that she would deliver up possession on April 25 1994. A copy of that notice reached the husband on April 15 1994. On June 17 1994 the council commenced possession proceedings against the husband. That claim was rejected by the county court judge and the council appealed. The Court of Appeal held by a majority that both the giving of the notice by the wife and the continuance of the proceedings by the council, after they became aware of the injunction, were acts committed in contempt of court, the latter being an abuse of judicial process. The council appealed.
Held The appeal was allowed.
1. A periodic tenancy granted to joint tenants took effect as a contractual arrangement intended to last until one or more of the parties evinced an intention no longer to be bound: see Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Monk [1992] 1 EGLR 65. Under the terms of the injunction the wife was restrained from taking positive steps calculated to disturb the husband’s enjoyment of his rights under the tenancy. Neither the injunction nor the act under which it was made required the wife to co-operate in preserving those rights. The husband’s application disclosed no apprehension on his part that the rights themselves were under threat. Accordingly, neither the wife nor the council had broken the terms of the injunction.
2. Nor had the council acted against any general interest in preserving the integrity of the judicial process. They knew nothing of any future matrimonial proceedings, being aware only of the wife’s desire to be rehoused. For that reason the husband could not rely on anything said or decided in Attorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd [1992] 1 AC 191.
Andrew Arden QC and Frank Feehan (instructed by the solicitor to Harrow London Borough Council) appeared for the appellants; Nicholas Underhill QC and Adrian Jack (instructed by Rosenbergs) appeared for the respondent.
