Harris v Goddard [1983] 1 WLR 1203, CA
Spouses – Joint Tenants – Severance – Mutual Intention – Divorce Proceedings
Facts
Mr and Mrs Harris were married and were joint tenants of their matrimonial home. As their relationship deteriorated, Mrs Harris petitioned for divorce, and sought an order under s24Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 that an order be made to sever the joint tenancy in the matrimonial home. Prior to the hearing on this issue the husband was killed in a car crash. The wife claimed that despite the prayer in the pleadings seeking an order of this nature, the joint tenancy had not yet been severed at the time of her husband’s death and so she was entitled to the right to survivorship of the joint tenancy.
Issues
Whether the wife’s pleadings that the court sever the joint tenancy under s24 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 effectively severed the joint tenancy or not. Whether a prayer of petition could itself sever a joint tenancy.
Decision/Outcome
The joint tenancy had not been severed. The inclusion of a prayer for severance in the wife’s pleadings could not sever a joint tenancy. A written notice of an intention to sever a tenancy could be effective to sever a tenancy, but only if it was to take effect immediately as was required by s36(2) Law of Property Act 1925. In this case the inclusion of a prayer in the petition for the court to exercise its discretion under s24 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 to distribute the property was simply a request that the court do so. This was to be done at a hearing, and was not therefore to take effect immediately. As such, the joint tenancy had not been severed.
Updated 21 March 2026
This case summary remains legally accurate. Harris v Goddard [1983] 1 WLR 1203 continues to be good law and is routinely cited as authority for the proposition that a prayer in divorce proceedings requesting the court to exercise its discretion over property under s24 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 does not itself sever a joint tenancy, because it does not express an immediate, unilateral intention to sever as required by s36(2) Law of Property Act 1925. Both s24 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and s36(2) Law of Property Act 1925 remain in force in materially the same form relevant to this case. There have been no subsequent appellate decisions overruling or significantly qualifying the principle established here. Students should note that the broader law on severance of joint tenancies, including the requirements for an effective written notice, has been further considered in cases such as Kinch v Bullard [1999] 1 WLR 423, which confirmed that a notice of severance is effective once it reaches the other joint tenant’s address, and Nielsen-Jones v Fedden [1975] Ch 222, though neither affects the core principle in Harris v Goddard itself.
