Re Draper’s Conveyance [1969] 1 Ch 486, ChD
Co-Ownership of Land – Joint Tenancy – Severance
Facts
A husband and wife were joint tenants of their matrimonial property. As their relationship broke down divorce proceedings were begun. The wife issued a summons under s17 Married Women’s Property Act 1882 requesting that the house be sold and the proceeds split between them. To this effect the wife swore an affidavit providing that that the proceeds be distributed equally, or in the alternative the husband would pay her one half of the value of the matrimonial home. An order for possession and sale was granted by the court. However, the husband died before the divorce proceedings were finalised. The husband’s children sought the court to rule that the joint tenancy had been effectively severed, whilst the wife wished for the joint tenancy to remain, so that she could then exercise the right of survivorship over the whole property.
Issues
Whether or not the summons and sworn affidavit had effectively severed the joint tenancy. Whether or not the making of the affidavit indicated an intention of ending the joint tenancy or not. Whether or not the severance was immediate as required by s36(2) Law of Property Act 1925.
Decision/Outcome
The joint tenancy had been effectively severed. The issue of a summons and the sworn affidavit indicated a clear and immediate intention to sever the joint tenancy. Unlike in Harris v Goddard [1983] 1 WLR 1203, CA the intention to sever the tenancy was apparent from the immediacy of the demand that the property be sold and the proceeds split equally. This satisfied the provisions of s36(2) Law of Property Act 1925 which required that a notice in writing have immediate effect. As such, the tenancy was severed and the wife could not exercise the right to survivorship of the joint tenancy over the whole home.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case note remains legally accurate. Re Draper’s Conveyance [1969] 1 Ch 486 is still good law and is regularly cited in the context of severance of joint tenancy. The statutory provisions referenced — s.17 Married Women’s Property Act 1882 and s.36(2) Law of Property Act 1925 — remain in force in their relevant form. The comparison with Harris v Goddard [1983] 1 WLR 1203 is correct: that case confirmed that a mere prayer for a property adjustment order (seeking a sale at some future point) was insufficient to effect immediate severance, whereas in Re Draper’s Conveyance the demand was immediate. Both cases continue to represent the leading authorities on this point. No subsequent statutory reform or case law has displaced the principles described here. Students should note that severance of a joint tenancy can also be effected by other methods (for example, a written notice under s.196 LPA 1925 following Kinch v Bullard [1998] 1 WLR 423), but that broader topic falls outside the scope of this case note.
