Professor John Mee:

It would be better if there were legislation, as that would make things clearer for families. It is a complicated area and, as such, there are many things I did not say. It would be better if there were legislation to introduce clarity and to deal with unusual situations such as circumstances in which there are three joint tenants and it is difficult to work that through. It is also the case that a complication has been introduced, which is the main reason Ms Justice Laffoy suggested there should be reform. However, this complication has been lost. The complication is the special rule in respect of land only. Previously, one could sever the joint tenancy at any time so it was very clear there was no profit for the killer in getting it converted to a tenancy in common. He could have achieved that at any time without the consent of the other person by creating a unilateral deed to switch to the other type of co-ownership. As such, there was no benefit. However, section 30 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 introduced a rule that said one could not sever a joint tenancy without the prior written consent of the other joint tenants. In relation to land only, and this is a matter of opinion and might not happen, one could see a situation where the killer could benefit. Let us say the killer was suffering from a terminal illness and was going to die first and lose out on the survivorship, he or she might say he or she wanted to sever the joint tenancy but the other person would be entitled to refuse.

The person dying of cancer could go to court and say, "I want you to dispense with the need for consent on the basis that it is being unreasonably withheld." If the court was to state "No", that person would be at the point of losing out completely and would then murder the other person. If the two had a tenancy in common, they would achieve something they could not otherwise achieve. It is complex point. The suggestion made in my submission is that the principle is we want to stop the killer from gaining a benefit. The court would have to try to identify the benefit and deprive him or her of it.