8uvneeLa 8eeharry

CCCWNLkSnI
O Jhen Lwo or more people aL Lhe same Llme own an lnLeresL ln land elLher ln land or ln equlLy lL ls known
as concurrent ownersh|p whlch becomes sub[ecL Lo coownersh|p Coownershlp Lakes place behlnd a
LrusL of land as under 1LA1A 1996
O A LrusL ls a relaLlonshlp where properLy ls managed by one person for Lhe beneflL of anoLher A LrusL ls
creaLed by enLrusLlng properLy Lo trustees who Lhen hold Lhe |ega| LlLle buL are obllged Lo hold Lhe
properLy for Lhe benef|c|ar|es who hold equ|tab|e LlLle

1 @pes of Coownersh|p
11 !olnL 1enancles
O lsLs ln law and qulLy
O everance can occur ln Lqu|t
a) Nature of coownersh|p
1he coowners are each enLlLled Lo Lhe whole of Lhe coowned land and do noL own any shares ln Lhe
land 1hey are seen as a 'slngle owner' nammersm|th L8C v Monk (1992)
b) @he 'Iour Un|t|es'
DnlLy of ossess|on 8lghL Lo possess coowned land buL cannoL eclude oLher !1s from Lhe land
DnlLy of Interest ame lnLeresL ln eLenL naLure and duraLlon ln Lhe land
DnlLy of @|t|e MusL derlve LlLle from Lhe same documenL
DnlLy of @|me MusL be acqulred aL Lhe same Llme
c) octr|ne of Surv|vorsh|p
O Jhen one [oln LenanL dles any lnLeresL held by hlm wlll auLomaLlcally pass Lo Lhe oLher [olnL LenanL
Lhe concurrenL lnLeresL dlsappears and Lhe oLher becomes Lhe sole owner 8/ockstone
O f boLh LenanLs dle aL Lhe same Llme s184 LA 192S sLaLes LhaL Lhe sLaLe would pass under Lhe younger
one's wlll
O ku|es of Intestac !olnL Lenancy cannoL leave any lnLeresL ln Lhe land by wlll upon deaLh
12 1enancy n Common
O Cn| elsLs ln qulLy
O 1enanLs own und|v|ded shares ln land noL necessarlly equal noL Lhe whole properLy
O 1enanLs can share sell morLgage or leave lL Lo someone else ln a wlll (ku|es of Intestac)
O 8equlres only unlLy of ossess|on
O -o urvlvorshlp

2 Creat|on Cf Coownersh|p In Land
21 1he poslLlon aL law (legal 1lLle)
O Coownershlp wlll occur when land elLher leasehold or freehold ls acqulred by more Lhan one person
O L ls conveyed or adversely possessed Lo more Lhan one person and Lhey reglsLer as coowners
O 1enancy ln common can have many LlLles buL !olnL LenanLs have only C- legal LlLle
a) @he |ega| estate can on| ex|st as a [o|nt tenanc
s1(6) LA 192S sLaLes 'a legal esLaLe cannoL be creaLed ln an undlvlded share ln land' whlch relaLes Lo
Lenancy ln common
b) @he |ega| estate cannot be severed
s36(2) LA 192SsLaLes LhaL a [olnL Lenancy cannoL be severed so Lhere cannoL be a Lenancy ln common
c) @here |s a ||m|t on number of owners
8uvneeLa 8eeharry
s34(2) LA 192S sLaLes a malmum of 4 can be [olnL LenanLs of Lhe legal LlLle f Lhere are more Lhan 4
Lhe flrsL 4 on Lhe conveyance wlll hold Lhe LlLle (cepL lf under 18 or oLher dlsablllLy ln eyes of law)
22 1he poslLlon aL qulLy (qulLable sLaLe)
Coowners ln equlLy share Lhe equlLable ownershlp of Lhe land behlnd a LrusL qulLy favours Lenancy ln
common
Is |t a [o|nt tenanc or a tenanc |n common?
a) Intent|on of the part|es
arLles may sLaLe on Lhe conveyance of Lhe properLy wheLher Lhey wanL a Lenancy ln common or a [olnL
Lenancy presslons LhaL suggesL a Lenancy ln common 'Lo be dlvlded beLween' (I|sher v W|ggs
(1700))'n equal shares' (ane v Webb(1874))
Powever where Lhere ls an epress sLaLemenL eg sold as [olnL LenanLs ln Lhe conveyance as Lo how
Lhe shares should be dlvlded LhaL wlll be concluslve Goodman v Ga||ant (1986)
b) Unequa| contr|but|ons to purchase pr|ce
Jhere Lhere ls an unequal conLrlbuLlon Lo Lhe purchase prlce of Lhe land a Lenancy ln common ls
lnferred and Lhe shares wlll be proporLlonaLe Lo Lhelr conLrlbuLlons
c) Loan on mortgage
1he morLgagees are LenanLs ln common of Lhe properLy even Lhough Lhey hold Lhe legal LlLle
d) 8us|ness artners
Jhere buslness parLners have [olnLly boughL land Lhere ls an assumpLlon LhaL survlvorshlp ls noL
deslred so a Lenancy ln common ls lmplled unless epressly sLaLed oLherwlse
e) Ma|aan Cred|t Ltd v Iack Ch|aMn Ltd (1986) 2 8uslness LenanLs Look a lease for offlce space CourL
sald LhaL slnce Lhey Look Lhe lease as a buslness parLnershlp lL was a Lenancy ln common Also CourL
ldenLlfled 3 ways ln whlch [olnL LenanLs aL law hold Lenancy ln common aL equlLy see b) c) and d)

3 Severance
O 1ransforms a [olnL Lenancy lnLo a Lenancy ln common
O Can only apply Lo a [olnL Lenancy ln Lqu|t LA 192S s1(6)
O -o longer a rlghL Lo survlvorshlp
31 LaLuLory under LA s36 (2) JrlLLen noLlce MA-A1C8?
a) Un||atera| dec|s|on
1he declslon Lo sever can be made wlLhouL Lhe consenL of oLher [olnL 8D1 Lhe noLlce should be served
on ALL of Lhe [olnL LenanLs
b) No part|cu|ar form of wr|tten not|ce to sever requ|red
O 1he noLlce does noL have Lo slgned or ln any parLlcular form n ke rapers's Conveance (1969) an
appllcaLlon Lo Lhe CourL requesLlng Lhe sale of properLy and dlvlslon of proceeds of sale were accepLed
as noLlces and Lhus operaLed Lo sever under s36(2)
O av|d naton 'Io|nt @enanc|esSeverance' (1976) argues LhaL Lhe wordlng of Lhls secLlon only allows
Lhe noLlce of severance Lo be used lf Lhe LrusLee ls Lhe same as Lhe beneflclary le same [olnL LenanL
holds boLh legal and equlLable LlLle
c) Immed|ate Intent|on to sever
O narr|s v Goddard (1983) ocs had wordlng ls Lo make such order as Lhe CourL saw flL" regardlng Lhe
sale of a properLy 1he courL sald LhaL Lhe doc dld noL saLlsfy s36 and emphaslsed LhaL Lo quallfy Lhe
language used musL show a deflnlLe lnLenLlon Lo sever lmmedlaLely and noL ln Lhe fuLure
O -o severance lf proposed durlng negoLlaLlons n Gore Sne|| v Carpenter (1990) Lhe parLles wanLed a
separaLlon and lncluded a severance clause ln Lhe dlvorce proposals 1he husband dled durlng Lhe
negoLlaLlons 1he CourL held LhaL Lhere was no effecLlve severance under s36 as Lhe proposal was noL
menLloned separaLely Lhus was noL lnLended 1here was no muLual agreemenL Lo sever
8uvneeLa 8eeharry
d) Serv|ce of not|ce to sever under s196(3) (4)
l) s196(3) LefL aL Lhe lasL known address of reclplenL or Lhe day C8-A8? posL arrlves aL address
k|nch v 8u||ard (1998) 1he wlfe was Lermlnally lll and declded Lo dlvorce her husband 1he sollclLor
prepared Lhe noLlce and posLed lL vla ord|nar post under s36(2) Pusband suffered hearL aLLack and
dled wlLhouL readlng lL he declded noL Lo sever and desLroyed Lhe leLLer -euberger ! ruled LhaL
severance had occurred as Lhe wlfe had lefL lL aL Lhe lasL known abode as per s196(3)
nowever ln C818 (noL blndlng) sLaLed LhaL revocaLlon would have been successful lf she spoke Lo
hlm before Lhe noLlce arrlved
ll) s196(4) enL vla 818 posL
ke 88 8erke|e koad (1983) 1he [olnL LenanL wlshlng Lo sever slgned recelpL of her own noLlce of
severance on behalf of Lhe oLher !1 who was on hollday and dldn'L recelve Lhe noLlce 1he CourL sald
LhaL servlce ls effecLlve when leLLer ls senL by reg|stered post no need Lo esLabllsh acLual recelpL

O M erc|va| ' Severance b Wr|tten Not|ce A Matter of e||ver?' (1999) argued LhaL a noLlce should
noL be LreaLed as properly glven lf lL ls plcked up or desLroyed by Lhe acLual sender as Lhere ls a
posslblllLy of abuse by [olnL LenanLs who posL a noLlce and collecL lL on arrlval Lhus prevenLlng oLher
[olnL LenanLs from recelvlng lL
32 Common Law under W||||ams v nensman (1861)
Jllllams v Pensman ldenLlfled 3 ways LhaL a [olnL Lenancy can be severed aL common law
a) Un||atera| Conduct of a Io|nt @enant
l) An acL of one parLy operaLlng upon hls share
(1) ale of Lhe share severs !1 as lL removes unlLy of LlLle however Lhe seller remalns as a [olnL LenanL
Lo Lhe LAL LlLle as lL cannoL be severed due Lo a wrlLLen conLracL under s2 LA (M|sc Act) (1989)
(2) ke rapers' Conveance (1969) lormal sLarL of llLlgaLlon wlll be consldered as severance
(3) MorLgaglng share ln equlLy consLlLuLes severance even when morLgage ls fraudulenL I|rst nat|ona|
Secur|t|es v negert (198S) Pusband forged wlfe's slgnaLure on morLgage docs and defaulLed on
paymenL CourL held LhaL severance had occurred as Llme of appllcaLlon o Lhe morLgage only
applled Lo Lhe husband's share
Powever lf all [olnL LenanLs apply for morLgage LogeLher Lhere ls no severance
ll) 8ankrupLcy
All Lhe properLy owned by Lhe [olnL LenanL ls auLomaLlcally vesLed ln hls LrusLee ln bankrupLcy o
LrusLee Lakes over as a LenanL ln common Dnder Inso|venc Act 1980 ss283 and ss306 Lhe beneflclal !1
ls severed on Lhe maklng of Lhe order of bankrupLcy (ad[ucaLlon) and goes Lo LrusLee ke enn|s (199S)
n ke a|mer (1994) Lhe wlfe dled a debLor before Lhe order and Lhe CourL sald LhaL lf a debLor dles
before bankrupLcy order Lhere ls no severance and survlvorshlp occurs
lll)1ransfer of properLy
(1) 1o anoLher [olnL LenanL wlll noL sever Lhe acqulrlng !1's orlglnal LlLle ln Lhe properLy eg lf a share
was sold Lo A A would become a LenanL ln common of Lhe share as well as a conLlnulng ownershlp
of hls orlglnal share
(2) 1o a 3
rd
parLy eg by way of glfL or sale wlll consLlLuLe severance
lv)Jllls
Mose v G|es (1700) urvlvorshlp operaLes lmmedlaLely afLer deaLh and Lhus Lhere ls no lnLeresL ln
land whlch ls able Lo pass under Lhe [olnL LenanL's wlll
b) Mutua| Agreement
Dnllke s36(2) cannoL be a unllaLeral acL lL depends on all [olnL LenanLs agreelng and Lhere are no
wrlLLen formallLles requlred
8uvneeLa 8eeharry
n 8urgess v kawns|e (197S) a couple meL and llved LogeLher becomlng [olnL LenanLs ln equlLy of a
houses 1he relaLlonshlp dld noL lasL and Mr Ponlck C8ALL? agreed Lo buy Mrs 8awnsley's share buL she
laLer changed her mlnd Cn Mr Ponlck's deaLh she argued survlvorshlp elsLed 1he CourL sald LhaL
even Lhough Lhe agreemenL was noL ln wrlLlng and was noL speclflcally enforceable lL was sufflclenL Lo
effecL a severance
Lord enn|ng A unllaLeral declaraLlon of one !1 can sever ConLrasLed wlLh JalLon ! ln Ne||sonIones v
Iedden (197S)
1hls ls conLrasLed wlLh Gore Sne|| v Carpenter (1990) where Lhere was no severance as Lhere was no
evldence of a muLual agreemenL merely dlscusslons and no course of deallng (no common agreemenL)
c) Mutua| Conduct
nvolves a course of conducL LhaL leads Lo acLual physlcal dlvlslon of Lhe land
JhaL leads Lo a course of deallng sufflclenL for severance?
l) Long Lerm assumpLlon abouL ownershlp n Gore Sne|| v Carpenter (1990) Lhe parLles LreaLed Lhelr
shares as separaLe and noL [olnL
ll) MuLual Jllls
f boLh parLles creaLe ldenLlcal wllls lL wlll severe Lhe [olnL Lenancy as Lhls ls seen as a conLracL whlch ls
blndlng on boLh parLles
lll)hyslcal dlvlslon of Lhe properLy
Greenf|e|d v Greenf|e|d (1979) A house boughL by 2 marrled broLhers had been dlvlded lnLo 2
separaLe malsoneLLes Dpon Lhe deaLh of one broLher hls wldow clalmed hls share CourL sald LhaL Lhe
physlcal separaLlon of Lhe house dld noL consLlLuLe severance Lhe lnLenLlon needs Lo be consldered
lv)nconcluslve negoLlaLlons over Lhe properLy Gore Sne|| v Carpenter (1990)
33 everance by unlawful kllllng (forfelLure)
Cne !1 kllls anoLher !1 severs Lhe [olnL Lenancy and forfelLure prevenLs any resulLlng proflL under Lhe
Iorfe|ture Act 1982 s2(1) (2) 1he legal esLaLe ls held on a consLrucLlve LrusL for Lhe murderer by hlmself
and Lhe vlcLlm's esLaLe ls held as a Lenancy ln common ln equal shares
n ke k (198S) Lhe wlfe kllled her abuslve husband under Lhe forfelLure acL she would only be enLlLled Lo a
Z share buL aL Lhe CourL's dlscreLlon she lnherlLed Lhe enLlre esLaLe
n Lhe AusLrallan case kasman|s v Iurew|tsch (1970) lf Lhere ls more Lhan one LenanL lnvolved Lhe
lnnocenL [olnL LenanLs should noL be deprlved of Lhelr share from Lhe vlcLlm's esLaLe
34 osslble 8eforms
1he Law Commlsslon ln 1983 looked aL 3 opLlons
O ncorporaLe all meLhods of severance ln sLaLuLe
O 8esLrlcLlon of severance Lo wrlLLen noLlce
O nLroducLlon of severance by wlll
L @ee 'Severance kev|s|ted' (198S) analyses Lhese opLlons and concludes
O everance by wlll allow a [olnL LenanL Lo leave hls properLy vla wlll Lhus hls share goes Lo someone he
chooses
O Powever Lhls may resulL ln abuse where a [olnL LenanL could secreLly sever a wlll and also en[oy Lhe
rlghL of survlvorshlp lf Lhe oLher [olnL LenanL dles
O CurrenLly Lhe deslre Lo sever should be made epllclL buL Lhere are sLlll some uncerLalnLles aL presenL
and Lhe consLrucLlon of a sulLable wlll resulL ln more uncerLalnLy
Mark @hompson '8enef|c|a| Io|nt @enanc|es A Case Ior Abo||t|on?'(1987) argues LhaL only Lenancy ln
common should elsL as lL would help solve Lhe problems of properLy ln relaLlonshlps LhaL break down
AM r|tchard '8enef|c|a| Io|nt @enanc|es A r|poste' (1987) argues for Lhe reLenLlon of Lhe Lwo forms of
coownershlp argulng LhaL for many [olnL LenanLs Lhelr LlLle reflecLs Lhelr wlshes 1he converslon of all co
ownershlp lnLo Lenancy ln common wlll only respond Lo relaLlonshlps LhaL have broken down
8uvneeLa 8eeharry
4 @rusts In Land
Tiusts of Lanu
W nuei tiusts of lanu the legal estate is vesteu in the tiustees who auministei the piopeity foi
the beneficiaiies

ispute Resolution - Application to the Couit
W Any peison who is a tiustee of lanu oi has an inteiest in the lanu may apply to the couit foi an
oiuei of sale oi othei exeicise of the tiustees poweis, s TLATA 99
W The couit is to have iegaiu to:
the intentions of the cieatoi of the tiust
the puipose foi which the piopeity is helu
the welfaie of any minoi in occupation
the inteiest of any secuieu cieuitoi
the wishes of any beneficiaiy, s TLATA 99

S @he Impact Cf @rust Cf Land Cn urchasers