To what extent is it true to say that severance should be final and irrevocable to be effective?

Discuss in relation to all modes of severance.

In the introduction you may consider:

• who would seek to sever and why;
• how it can be achieved (key authorities include: s 36(2) LPA 1925; Williams v Hensman (1861); Re Caines (1978)); and
• what effect successful severance has on co-ownership, looking at both the legal and equitable titles (key authorities include: s 34 and s 36(2) LPA 1925; Goodman v Gallant (1986)).

In the main body you might focus upon case law and how, if at all, this demonstrates that severance should be final and irrevocable.

This may include:

• in respect of severance by written notice: discussion of the two key cases Re Drapers Conveyance (1969) and Harris v Goddard (1983). Identify why the courts found a final and irrevocable intention to sever in the former but not in the latter case. Were the circumstances in Re Drapers Conveyance (1969) truly final and irrevocable do you think? Consider Neilson Jones v Fedden (1975) criticism of litigation documents amounting to effective severance on the basis that they are revocable. Do you think such criticism is justified? (This discussion can be linked to severance by an act operating on your own share and, specifically, commencement of litigation.)
• in respect of severance by mutual agreement: discuss key case of Burgess v Rawnsley (1975). Consider why the court deemed the oral negotiations between the parties to be sufficiently final and irrevocable. Does this accord with your interpretation of what is meant by final and irrevocable? How has other case law supported or criticized the court's interpretation here as to what is sufficient to be deemed final and irrevocable. Key cases here may include: Brown v Raindle (1796); Hunter v Babbage (1994); Gore and Snell v Carpenter (1990); Neilson Jones v Fedden (1975); Davis v Smith (2011). (This discussion may be linked to severance by mutual conduct and, in particular, discussions made by Denning, Sir John Pennyquick and Browne in the case of Burgess v Rawnsley (1975).)

Conclude.