## Facts

- Mr. and Mrs. Johnson owned their matrimonial home as beneficial joint tenants.
- Amid divorce proceedings, Mrs. Johnson sent a letter via first-class post to Mr. Johnson, stating her intention to sever the joint tenancy and create a tenancy in common.
- After posting the notice, Mrs. Johnson learned Mr. Johnson was terminally ill. Believing she would survive him, she destroyed the letter after it had been delivered but before it was read.
- Mr. Johnson died a few weeks later, and Mrs. Johnson died a few months after that.
- The executors of their estates brought an action to determine whether the notice to sever had been legally effective and thus how the property should be divided.

## Issues

1. Whether delivery of a letter expressing the intention to sever a joint tenancy constitutes effective notice under Section 36(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925.
2. Whether subsequent destruction of the notice by the sender, after delivery but before it was read by the recipient, could render the notice ineffective or revoke it.
3. The meaning of “served” under Section 36(2) and Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 in the context of notice to sever a joint tenancy.

## Decision

- The court held that the notice to sever was effectively served when delivered to the recipient's address, specifically when placed in Mr. Johnson’s letterbox.
- Action by Mrs. Johnson in destroying the letter after delivery did not revoke or undo the legal effectiveness of the notice.
- Service for the purposes of severing a joint tenancy is complete upon delivery to the address, regardless of whether the recipient actually sees or reads the notice.
- The sender’s intention or subsequent change of mind after delivery is irrelevant to the effectiveness of the notice, provided service per section 196(3) has been achieved.

## Legal Principles

- A notice to sever a joint tenancy is effective upon proper delivery to the recipient’s last known address under Section 196(3) of the Law of Property Act 1925, not when it is read.
- Once properly served, a notice to sever is irrevocable by unilateral action or destruction of the notice by the sender.
- Allowing revocation after service but before reading would create uncertainty and potential unfairness in property law.
- Certainty in the service of legal notices underpins the fair and consistent application of property law, specifically concerning joint tenancies and tenancies in common.

## Conclusion

Kinch v Bullard confirmed that, under the Law of Property Act 1925, a properly served notice to sever a joint tenancy is both effective and irrevocable upon delivery to the recipient’s address, regardless of any subsequent destruction or change of intention by the sender, thereby reinforcing certainty and reliability in property ownership arrangements.

Kinch v Bullard [1998] 4 All ER 650