Kinch v Bullard [1998] 4 All ER 650
Joint Tenancy – Severance – Service of Notice of Intent to Sever
Facts
A married couple, Mr and Mrs Johnson were the beneficial joint tenants of their matrimonial home. After suffering a breakdown in their personal relationship divorce proceedings were begun. Mrs Johnson sent her husband a letter by first class post stating her intention to sever her interest and so sever the joint tenancy. However, Mr Johnson was by this time terminally ill, and realising that she was likely to outlive her husband she then destroyed the letter. Mr Johnson died a few weeks later, and Mrs Johnson then died a few months after that. The executors required the court to rule on whether or not the notice had effectively severed their joint tenancy.
Issues
Had the joint tenancy been effectively severed by the delivery of a letter in which one of the joint tenants indicated a desire to sever their interest? Whether or not this interest remained un-severed because the joint tenant later destroyed the letter before the other joint tenant read it, but after it had been delivered.
Decision/Outcome
The tenancy had been effectively severed by the delivery of the letter and notice that the tenant intended to sever their interest as provided for by s36(2) Law of Property Act 1925. Even though the wife at the time of delivery no longer wished to sever the joint tenancy, this could not prevent the notice from being effective. Under s196 Law of Property Act 1925 a notice was properly served it is left at the last known place of abode or business in the United Kingdom of the person served. Therefore, the notice of severance was effective from when the letter fell through the letterbox and it was irrelevant whether or not the wife destroyed the letter after it had been properly served.
Updated 21 March 2026
This case note remains accurate. Kinch v Bullard [1998] 4 All ER 650 (also reported at [1999] 1 WLR 423) is still good law and continues to be cited as authoritative on the severance of a joint tenancy by written notice under s.36(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925. The principle that service of a notice of severance is effective upon delivery to the property (pursuant to s.196 of the Law of Property Act 1925) — and that subsequent destruction of the notice by the serving party does not invalidate it — has not been overturned or materially qualified by later cases or legislation. Both s.36(2) and s.196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 remain in force in their relevant form. Readers should note that s.196 sets out the requirements for valid service, and courts have continued to apply the Kinch reasoning in disputes about postal and physical delivery of severance notices. No significant statutory amendments affecting these principles have been made since the decision.
