Kinch v Bullard [1998]
Share
Kinch v Bullard [1998] 4 All ER 650 is an English land law case revolving around co-ownership of land and the act of severance in a joint tenancy. The central question in the case was whether this severance was subject to the deemed-delivered provisions of the common law postal rule.
Mr and Mrs Johnson were beneficial joint tenants and divorcing. Mrs Johnson, aware of her terminal illness, sent a letter to Mr Johnson via ordinary first-class post, expressing her intention to sever her interest in the joint tenancy. Before Mr Johnson could see the letter, he suffered a heart attack. Recognising that survivorship would pass the property entirely to her if he predeceased her, Mrs Johnson destroyed the letter. Mr Johnson died a few weeks later, followed by Mrs Johnson a few months afterward. Mr Johnson's executors, in consultation with the beneficiaries, decided to sue Mrs Johnson's executors to determine the effectiveness of the notice to sever the joint tenancy.
Neuberger J held that the notice to sever was effective. He rejected the argument that the notice was invalid under Section 36(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925 because Mrs Johnson no longer desired to sever the joint tenancy at the time of the notice. Neuberger J emphasised that the function of section 36(2) was not to inquire into the parties' state of mind but to interpret the legal consequences of the notice.
He also highlighted the impracticality and potential unfairness of deeming a notice ineffective if the sender changed their mind between sending it and the recipient's receipt. Neuberger J expressed the view that such a requirement would be inconvenient and unrealistic. He concluded that the court should not be required to investigate the sender's state of mind to determine the validity of the notice.
Neuberger J mentioned in passing (obiter dictum) that a withdrawal communicated before a notice was given might likely lead to a different outcome, citing Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1974]. However, he clarified that this was a tentative view and not a binding part of the judgment.
The case clarified the effectiveness of a notice to sever a joint tenancy, even if the sender's desire to sever changed after the notice was dispatched but before it was received, based on the interpretation of Section 36(2) and practical considerations.
Mr and Mrs Johnson were beneficial joint tenants and divorcing. Mrs Johnson, aware of her terminal illness, sent a letter to Mr Johnson via ordinary first-class post, expressing her intention to sever her interest in the joint tenancy. Before Mr Johnson could see the letter, he suffered a heart attack. Recognising that survivorship would pass the property entirely to her if he predeceased her, Mrs Johnson destroyed the letter. Mr Johnson died a few weeks later, followed by Mrs Johnson a few months afterward. Mr Johnson's executors, in consultation with the beneficiaries, decided to sue Mrs Johnson's executors to determine the effectiveness of the notice to sever the joint tenancy.
Neuberger J held that the notice to sever was effective. He rejected the argument that the notice was invalid under Section 36(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925 because Mrs Johnson no longer desired to sever the joint tenancy at the time of the notice. Neuberger J emphasised that the function of section 36(2) was not to inquire into the parties' state of mind but to interpret the legal consequences of the notice.
He also highlighted the impracticality and potential unfairness of deeming a notice ineffective if the sender changed their mind between sending it and the recipient's receipt. Neuberger J expressed the view that such a requirement would be inconvenient and unrealistic. He concluded that the court should not be required to investigate the sender's state of mind to determine the validity of the notice.
Neuberger J mentioned in passing (obiter dictum) that a withdrawal communicated before a notice was given might likely lead to a different outcome, citing Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1974]. However, he clarified that this was a tentative view and not a binding part of the judgment.
The case clarified the effectiveness of a notice to sever a joint tenancy, even if the sender's desire to sever changed after the notice was dispatched but before it was received, based on the interpretation of Section 36(2) and practical considerations.