Hulme v Schaecken

The matter of Hulme v Schaecken came before the court to resolve a dispute concerning the status of a jointly held property and the means by which a severance of the joint tenancy could be achieved. The plaintiffs, Hulme, sought a declaration that the joint tenancy had been severed by one party's unilateral declaration of intention to sever. They also sought an order that the property be sold and the proceeds divided between the parties. The defendants, Schaecken, denied that the joint tenancy had been severed and argued that any severance would require their consent. The court was tasked with determining whether a unilateral declaration of intention could sever a joint tenancy and, if not, whether the court had the inherent jurisdiction to order a severance and sale of the property.

The primary legal issue was whether a unilateral declaration of intention by one joint tenant is sufficient to sever a joint tenancy. The court examined the relevant authorities and concluded that such a declaration does not sever the joint tenancy. The court also considered whether it had the inherent jurisdiction to order a severance and sale of the property, finding that while the court has inherent jurisdiction to make orders necessary to achieve justice, this did not extend to ordering a severance of a joint tenancy where one party objects. The court further determined that the mere commencement of proceedings does not effect a severance of the joint tenancy.

The court found that the unilateral declaration of intention made by one of the plaintiffs was ineffective to sever the joint tenancy. It held that the court does not have the inherent jurisdiction to order a severance of a joint tenancy against the will of one of the joint tenants. The court also rejected the argument that the commencement of proceedings had the effect of severing the joint tenancy. As a result, the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed, and the defendants were ordered to pay costs.