Joint Tenancy – Severance – Conditions necessary for severance
Facts
Mr Honick and Mrs Rawnsley bought a property as beneficial joint tenants. They had originally agreed to move into the property together. Mr Honick made a proposal of marriage to Mrs Rawnsley which she declined, and then in fact never moved into the property. She then agreed to sell her interest in the property to Mr Honick for £750. This price was originally agreed, but before the sale was completed Mrs Rawnsley changed her mind because she wanted a better price. Mr Honick then died. His estate wished to establish severance of the joint tenancy, whereas Mrs Rawnsley sought to show that the joint tenancy had not been severed and that she was entitled to survivorship of the property.
Issues
Whether or not the joint tenancy had been severed. Whether or not the parties had severed the joint tenancy by coming to an agreement on the sale of the property at a price of £750 even if this was not in fact completed.
Decision/Outcome
It was found that due to the agreement being oral the provisions of s40 Law of Property Act 1925 had not been met for the conveyance of the land. However, despite no clear ruling concerning this, it was asserted by Denning that a common intention had been formed through the parties ‘course of dealings’ which in turn severed the joint tenancy. The other judges concurred.
Updated 21 March 2026
This case summary remains broadly accurate as a description of Burgess v Rawnsley [1975] Ch 429 and the principles it established regarding severance of a joint tenancy by mutual agreement or course of dealings. However, one important statutory point requires updating: section 40 of the Law of Property Act 1925, which the article references in relation to the oral agreement, was repealed and replaced by section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. The 1989 Act imposes stricter requirements, requiring contracts for the sale or disposition of an interest in land to be in writing, signed by both parties, and incorporating all terms. The underlying principle from Burgess v Rawnsley — that an oral agreement or mutual course of dealings can still sever a joint tenancy in equity without satisfying the formal requirements for a contract for the sale of land — remains good law. Students should also note that severance of a joint tenancy must now comply with the notice requirements under section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 or be effected by other recognised methods, and that the Law Commission has periodically considered reform in this area without producing legislative change to date. The core authority and its reasoning remain valid and are still routinely cited in land law.
