Joint Tenancy in UK Law

If before 1925 the implied consent of both joint tenants, signified by the omission to give notice to quit, was necessary to extend the tenancy from one period to the next, precisely the same applies since 1925 to the extension by the joint trustee beneficiaries of the periodic tenancy which is the subject of the trust.

The action of giving notice to determine a periodic tenancy is in form positive; but both on authority and on the principle so aptly summed up in the pithy Scottish phrase "tacit relocation" the substance of the matter is that it is by his omission to give notice of termination that each party signifies the necessary positive assent to the extension of the term for a further period.

If afreehold is conveyed to and upon trust for themselves as joint tenants, each has the same beneficial interest in that property as the. If there be two beneficial joint tenants, severance produces a beneficial tenancy in common in two equal shares. and by declaration of the beneficial joint tenancy between and B, their respective rights and titles are no less clearly laid down and established than if there had been a declaration of a beneficial tenancy in common in equal undivided shares.

So that, in the absence of all evidence, if a husband puts property into his wife's name he intends it to be a gift to her but if he puts it into joint names then (in the absence of all other evidence) the presumption is the same as a joint beneficial tenancy.

In the case we have to consider, the house was acquired as the matrimonial home. But with the end of the marriage, that purpose was dissolved and the primacy of the duty to sell was restored. If the husband wanted time to obtain alternative accommodation, the sale could be postponed for that purpose, but he has not asked for that. If he was prepared to buy out the Plaintiff's interest, it might be proper to allow it, but he has not accepted a suggestion that terms of that sort should be made.

but "did the parties intend their beneficial interests to be different from their legal interests?" I know of no case in which a sole legal owner (there being no declaration of trust) has been held to hold the property on a beneficial joint tenancy. Another difference is that it will almost always have been a conscious decision to put the house into joint names.

The burden will therefore be on the person seeking to show that the parties did intend their beneficial interests to be different from their legal interests, and in what way. In family disputes, strong feelings are aroused when couples split up. These often lead the parties, honestly but mistakenly, to reinterpret the past in self-exculpatory or vengeful terms. They also lead people to spend far more on the legal battle than is warranted by the sums actually at stake.