Assignment of lease between lessees as joint tenants-is lessor’s consent required?

The decision of Lockrey v Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales [2012] NSWSC 654 raises an interesting issue about the necessity of seeking the consent of the lessor where there is an assignment of a lease between joint tenants who already hold the lease when one joint tenant sells the business operated on the leased premises to the other joint tenant. A secondary issue raised by the proceedings concerns whether the lessor’s consent was unreasonably withheld under the processes under Retail Leases Act 1994 (NSW) (“the Act”) upon the grounds of lack of provision of information as to the remaining lessee’s financial standing.

'Leaving Nothing to Chance'?: Joint Tenancies, The 'Right' of Survivorship and Unilateral Severance

The joint tenancy with its inherent right of survivorship is the most prevalent form of co-ownership in the common law world today. Most couples will be joint tenants of a family home, while relations (such as siblings) who purchase property together may opt for this arrangement. Inter vivos acquisitions aside, the huge intergenerational transfer of wealth within families on death can result in a joint tenancy, and it may also be a convenient estate planning device. The fact that property automatically vests in the surviving joint tenants on death is the reason why many people choose this form of co-ownership. However, there is one serious disadvantage. A joint tenancy is an inflexible form of landholding where relationships sour or family circumstances change over time, and co-owners want their respective `shares' of the property to pass to someone else on death. Where consensual severance is not possible, one joint tenant can sever unilaterally. The latter mechanism is vital in terms of giving effect to the wishes of the severing joint tenant, especially in situations of discord or a breakdown in relations with their fellow co-owners. However, unilateral severance also has serious implications for the non-severing joint tenant(s) who expected to inherit property through survivorship, and can impact significantly on ownership of the home and other family property. This article looks at unilateral severance as a means of subverting the right of survivorship. The focus is on personal and inter-family relationships, and the various legal issues and policy considerations associated with unilateral severance across the common law jurisdictions of Britain, Ireland, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. It assesses the various methods of effecting unilateral severance and proposes specific measures, as well as considering novel arguments for preventing unilateral severance based on contractual agreements to the contrary and proprietary estoppel.

Joint tenancies and English commorientes:a question of survivorship or severance?

The aim of this article is to provide a critical appraisal of the English law in relation to the doctrine of commorientes with particular reference to its implications in respect of property held on a joint tenancy. The article suggests a measure of reform which would produce a fairer dsitribution of joint property in circusmtances where all joint tenants have died in a common disaster and it cannot be ascertained which joint tenant died first.

No more nonsense

Discusses the approach of the courts to the quantification of beneficial interests in the family home in the event of a relationship breakdown. Assesses the clarification provided by the Court of Appeal ruling in Fowler v Barron on whether the respondent was the sole beneficial owner of a property purchased with his former partner, by means of a significant cash contribution from him and a mortgage in both their names, focusing on whether he could rebut the presumption that they held the property as joint tenants in equity where it was registered in joint names. [From Legal Journals Index]

By-Law no. 12

A by-law begins: "It was then moved by R.S. Kinner and Seconded by George Barnes that by Law No. 12 be read. Whereas by Identure bearing date thirteenth day of August A.D. 1873 made between one George Barnes of the first part thereof and Andrew S. Kinner and Charles Robert Murray of the second part thereof which said Identure was duly registered in the Registry Office for Lands for the said County of Lincoln on the 14th day of August A.D. 1880 in Book 4 for the Township of Louth as No. 1534 the said George Barnes granted and conveyed the Lands and premises therein described to the said Andrew S. Kinner and Charles Robert Murray and their heirs and assigns as joint tenants and not as tenants as common upon the trusts and for the purposes therein expressed. And Whereas the said Andrew S. Kinner died on about the 13th day of June 1877 A.D. without having made any appointment under the provisions of the said in part recited Identure.."