Statute	Provision	Applications
LPA 1925 s 184	Where multiple joint tenants die in a single incident the oldest is presumed to have died first	Re Bate – Jenkins J held that this provision applies even where there is evidence that the two people died at the same time
LPA 1925 s 184		Hickman v Peacey – deceased persons were killed by a bomb, but HL held that the section still applied (Viscount Simon LC dissenting – a rule that where it is uncertain which horse passed the finish line first the prize goes to the younger horse doesn’t mean that in a dead-heat the prize can’t be shared)
LPA 1925 s 36(2)	Notice in writing is required to sever joint tenancies of legal estates vested in the joint tenants beneficially

Cases

Subject	Case	Held	Treatment
Words of severance rebut presumption of joint tenancy	Robertson v Fraser	Lord Hatherley LC: “anything which in the slightest degree indicates an intention to divide the property must be held to abrogate the idea of a joint tenancy, and to create a tenancy in common”. Words like “participate”, “amongst” and “respectively” indicate such intention.	Arguable that choice of words is likely random and not a sign of intention.
Equitable presumptions of tenancy in common	Malayan Credit v Jack Chia-MPH	Lord Brightman: where premises are held as joint tenancy at law for holders’ several individual business purposes, it can still be a tenancy in common in Equity (though it is not partnership property) – thus the three classes of Equitable exceptions are fluid	Lord Brightman placed much emphasis on the unequal contribution of both parties – would the outcome be different if it had been equal? (seems arbitrary to answer in the affirmative)
Methods of severing joint tenancies	Williams v Hensman	Page-Wood VC: three methods exist to sever joint tenancies: Act operating on severer’s share Mutual agreement Course of dealing suggesting of intention	Sir John Pennycuick in Burgess said that the importance of agreement is that it evinces the common intention of parties; it seems that it can be subsumed under the third head, although he just says that the third head is wider than the second. Lawton LJ says that these methods are still valid after 1925 because s36(2)’s reference to ‘other methods’ includes them
	Nielson-Jones v Fedden	Walton J: a unilateral declaration cannot sever because 1) it would eliminate the need to convey to trustees and 2) s36(2) would be pointless/restrictive. S36(2) only applies to real and not personal property – proceeds of sale cannot be severed by writing	Rejected by Burgess v Rawnsley and Harris v Goddard
	Burgess v Rawnsley	Denning: A unilateral declaration can sever as long as it is communicated to the other party. S36(2) applies to real and personal property because: (Denning) It would be absurd to create an anomaly (Pennycuick) The language of the statute suggests that the framers contemplated that writing was already sufficient to sever interests in personal property (Browne) The purpose of the provision was to declare a new method of severance, not distinguish between realty and personalty – but if the anomaly does exist, it should be corrected ASAP
	Harris v Goddard	Lawton LJ: the three methods in Williams v Hensman are still valid; notice by writing per s36(2) must evince present and not future intention to sever
	Gore and Snell v Carpenter	Negotiations are not the same as course of dealing – a course of dealing is where parties over the years treat the interest as tenancy in common and not joint
	Kinch v Bullard	Notice is ‘given’ for the purpose of S36(2) when it is delivered to the last known place of abode of the intended recipient (per S196) and it is unnecessary that he read/received it.

Articles

Author	Idea	Treatment
Thompson	Joint tenancies are often created in family homes because solicitors asked the parties whether they wanted the other to have the house if one died. Parties didn’t usually contemplate equal division of proceeds upon sale. This warrants abolishing the beneficial joint tenancy.
Pritchard	Many people are attracted by the idea of survivorship and they should be able to get it without having to draft a will – unsuccessful marriages shouldn’t dictate the law and aggrieved parties should be able to sever anyway

Textbook

Successive and concurrent interests

Successive interests don’t include leases because:
- Lessor doesn’t lose the fee simple absolute in possession and this interest is not postponed until lessee’s interest lapses
- (Most important) Successive interests are subject to statutory regulation allowing land to be sold free from these interests, and the value of leases requires land not to be sold free of them
Concurrent interests: joint tenancy and tenancy in common (eg. co-ownership of the family home – increasingly common)
Legal regulation
- Controversial because traditionally wealthy families owned land subject to complex settlements, but this is difficult for purchasers (especially if interests involve people unborn or children)
- Solution: overreaching
- 19C reforms made overreaching available in all situations involving successive interests (was controversial because land was still seen as the basis of power and wealth so families didn’t like it when their interests in land was converted to an interest in a fund)
- 1925 legislation introduced overreaching into concurrent...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Land Law Notes.

Concurrent Interests Notes

Updated Concurrent Interests Notes

Land Law

Table of Contents

Summary

Textbook

Successive and concurrent interests

Concurrent Interests

Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.

More Land Law Samples