A property was bought by parties as ‘beneficial joint tenants in equal shares’.
Held: The words ‘in equal shares’ had the effect of severing any joint tenancy created by the first words of the phrase. The law would apply the first of two mutually inconsistent provisions. That created the joint tenancy. The words however continued, and the last words severed the joint tenancy just created. Millett J said: ‘where there are two inconsistent provisions in a deed which cannot be reconciled, they are to be treated as if they were contained in separate deeds executed by the same parties, one after the other, and in the same order in which the two inconsistent provisions are to be found in the deed. That, of course, explains the difference in treatment between a deed and a will; for in the case of two inconsistent wills made by the same testator, the later revokes the former and prevails, whereas in the case of two inconsistent deeds the result will depend on whether the grantor had put it out of his power by the first deed to bring about the consequences purported to be effected by the second.’
Judges:
Millett J
Citations:
[1987] P and CR 238
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Explained – Slingsby’s Case 1587
Where two inconsistent provisions in a deed cannot be reconciled, the earlier provision prevails over the later. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Taylor v Rive Droite Music Ltd ChD 6-Jul-2004
The claimant music producer and songwriter had entered into a publishers agreement with the defendant, agreeing to work for it. He now sought to be free to work for another company. The factual background was unclear, and the contract documentation . .
Cited – Slater v Simm ChD 27-Apr-2007
The deceased and her partner did not marry but owned three properties together. They could not agree on the interpretation of the documents setting out their interests, and whether they had been varied.
Held: The court set out the various . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Trusts
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.190026