Legal Case Summary
Williams v Hensman (1861) 70 E.R. 862
Co-Ownership – Severance – Modes of Severance of Joint Tenancy
Facts
A fund of money had been bequeathed by a mother, on trust for eight children to be invested in order to create an income that would then be payable to her children on the mother’s death. The children consented to the fund being invested in this way, despite the fact that they were legally minors. At one point however, one of the children had sums advanced to them alone. The other children covenanted not to require the trustee to make up the shortfall to them, and indemnified the trustee against claims, for damage to their interests or other expenses incurred as a result of the advance.
Issues
What form of co-ownership in equity did the children have over the fund? Whether or not the beneficiaries were joint tenants of the fund. Whether or not a joint tenancy could be severed by the actions of the tenants. Whether or not this had been severed by their actions.
Decision / Outcome
The will created a joint tenancy between the beneficiaries. This had been severed by the actions of the beneficiaries. There were three ways by which a joint tenancy may be severed. Firstly, an act of one of the persons, operating on their own share. Secondly, by mutual agreement, and thirdly, where there is a course of dealing that is sufficient to show that the interests of all the parties were mutually being treated as a tenancy in common. In this case, all the parties had agreed to treat their interest as a tenancy in common and so the joint tenancy had been severed in this way.
Updated 21 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the decision in Williams v Hensman (1861) 70 E.R. 862, which remains the leading authority on the modes of severance of a joint tenancy in equity. The three methods of severance identified by Page Wood V-C — act of a party operating on their own share, mutual agreement, and course of dealing — continue to be applied by the courts and are consistently affirmed in subsequent case law, including Burgess v Rawnsley [1975] Ch 429 and Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17.
One significant statutory development to note is section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925, which governs written notice of severance, and which was considered alongside the Williams v Hensman principles in Kinch v Bullard [1998] 1 WLR 423. The article does not address severance by written notice under the 1925 Act, which is a distinct and important additional method of severance not drawn from Williams v Hensman itself. Readers should be aware of this gap when using the case as a complete guide to severance. The core legal principles stated in the article remain accurate and the case is still good law.
