Kinch v Bullard [1998] 4 All ER 650

High Court

Basic Facts: Mr. and Mrs. Johnson were beneficial joint tenants and in the process of divorcing. Mrs. Johnson, aware of her terminal illness, sent a letter via first-class post to Mr. Johnson, expressing her intention to sever her interest in the joint tenancy. Before Mr. Johnson could see the letter, he suffered a heart attack. Realizing that survivorship would pass the property entirely to her if he predeceased her, Mrs. Johnson destroyed the letter. Mr. Johnson died a few weeks later, followed by Mrs. Johnson. Mr. Johnson's executors sued Mrs. Johnson's executors to determine the effectiveness of the notice to sever the joint tenancy.

Issue for the Court: Was the notice to sever the joint tenancy effective, despite the sender's change of mind and destruction of the notice before it was received?

Held: The notice to sever was effective under Section 36(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925, regardless of Mrs. Johnson’s subsequent change of mind.

Neuberger J: Emphasized that the function of Section 36(2) is to interpret the legal consequences of the notice, not to inquire into the sender’s state of mind. He noted that requiring an investigation into the sender’s state of mind would be impractical and unrealistic. Neuberger J also mentioned, in passing, that a withdrawal communicated before the notice was given might lead to a different outcome but clarified that this was a tentative view and not binding.