578Property Law

Unity of title

Unity of title is concerned with how the interest originally arose and requires each joint tenant to derive his interest from the same act or document. Yet, as we shall see in Antoniades v. Villiers (where two separate but identical leasehold agreements each signed by one of two purported tenants in common were construed as two parts of the same document granting a joint tenancy to the pair), the courts have little difficulty side-stepping the formalistic implications of this unity. Despite such scepticism, however, the practical implications of unity of title are extremely important in the context of land-holding where (for reasons we considered in Chapter 10) the investigation of title is much more complex than it is with chattels. Under section 34(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925, statute has sought to reduce one aspect of this complexity by requiring that the legal title in land can only be held under a joint tenancy (and not a tenancy in common, which can only exist, if at all, behind a trust) so ensuring that (no matter how complex it is) there is only one title to investigate when any dealings take place in respect of the co-owned estate.

Unity of time

Unity of time simply requires the interest of each joint tenant to vest at the same time, which of course follows from their each owning the same interest derived from the same title.

Notes and Questions 16.2

Consider the following notes and questions both before and after reading Antoniades v. Villiers [1988] 2 WLR 1205, CA; [1990] AC 417, HL, and A. G. Securities v. Vaughan [1988] 2 All ER 173, CA; [1990] AC 417, HL, and the materials highlighted below, either in full or as extracted at www.cambridge.org/ propertylaw/.

1In what circumstances would it be appropriate for co-owners to choose one rather than the other form of co-ownership? Would it ever be appropriate for two or more companies to hold property as joint tenants?

2Can you reconcile the approach of the Court if Appeal in Antoniades v. Villiers with its approach in A. G. Securities v. Vaughan. What were the grounds of the decision in each case and what would have been the effect if leave to appeal to the House of Lords had not been granted? Can you think of any sensible reason why the Court of Appeal reached two decisions that were so diametrically opposed? Do you agree with the analysis of any of the judges who gave judgment in the Court of Appeal?

3What implications does the judgment of the House of Lords in Antoniades v. Villiers hold for unity of title? Is it a sensible decision that elevates substance