Citation(s): (1861) 1 J&H 546
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.
Williams v Hensman (1861) Facts. Complex joint tenancy/severance question regarding trust, not relevant to ratio; Issue. What constitutes a ‘such other act’ in what is now the Law of Property Act 1925, s 36(2) to sever a joint tenancy? Decision.
Followed – Burgess v Rawnsley CA ( 3 All ER 244, Bailii,  EWCA Civ 2) . . Cited – Barton v Morris ( 1 WLR 1257) A couple lived together as man and wife and bought a property for use as a guest house business to be run as a partnership.
Williams v Hensman (1861) is an English trusts law case. Its principles of co-owned interests are today more relevant to land, whether from a trust now held as joint tenants (the default form)
V Compulsory Partition and Sale in Ireland: Section 31 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 Open Section Chapter 6: The Repeal of An Act for Jointenants 1542 and the Jurisdiction to Order Partition or Sale under the Partition Acts
Williams v Hensman Mother held a money fund to be bequeathed to her eight children as a joint tenancy upon her death. Courts agreed that the eight children were joint tenants but as they had acted on their own in individual shares, they had severed this.
The severance of joint tenancies is an increasingly important issue in estate litigation and can occur without the registered joint owners even knowing it if their conduct is inconsistent with joint ownership. The leading English case is Williams v. Hensman ( 1861) 70 E.R. 862. Here the court held that a joint tenancy may be severed in
In one of land laws important cases, Williams v Hensman (1861), it was recognised that all joint tenants may agree to severe. The consideration of the agreement is the consent of each party to ‘relinquish the beneficial interest of a joint tenant .. including the right of accretion by survivorship, in …
According to Williams v Hensman  1 J & Hem 546, it is possible to sever a joint tenancy by:Quigley, as deputy, argued that the Court of Protection proceedings had constituted a course of
↑ Williams v Hensman (1861) 1 John & H 546. ↑ Magill v Magill (1997) NSW ConvR ¶55-795 ↑ Abela v Public Trustee  1 NSWLR 308. ↑ Greenfield v Greenfield (1979) 38 P & C R 570. ↑ Barton v Morris  1 WLR 1257. ↑ Textbook, pp. 668-9 [6.65-6.68]. ↑ Rasminas v Jurewitsch  2 NSWR 166. ↑ Public Trustee v Evans (1985) 2
32 As the application judge recognized, the classic statement setting out three ways in which a joint tenancy may be severed 4 is that of Vice-Chancellor Wood in Williams v. Hensman (1861), 70 E.R. 862 (Eng. V.-C.), at p. 867:
one of the three methods listed by Page Wood V-C in Williams v Hensman (1861) 1 John & H 546 (referred to indirectly in section 36(2) of the LPA 1925): ‘an act of one of the parties interested operating on her own share’;
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.