Hart v Maddison

On an application under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, the matters identified in section 15 guide, but do not dictate, the exercise of discretion under section 14. The court must balance the parties’ intentions, the purposes for which the property is held and practical hardship to reach a fair outcome. An appellate court should not interfere where relevant evidence was considered and the order falls plainly within the discretionary range. A single answer to a hypothetical question about future occupation may provide little support for challenging that assessment.

The parties had cohabited for many years and jointly acquired two properties. The Rhyl County Court found that they were joint owners and ordered both properties to be sold, with the proceeds divided equally. The defendant sought an extension and permission to challenge that consequential order.

She argued that the judge had given insufficient weight to evidence about the parties’ intentions and to her age, ill health, limited pension and inability to rehouse herself. The central issue was whether sale should instead be postponed, and whether the order made was within the judge’s discretion under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996.

Lord Justice Thorpe gave the reasons, and Lord Justice Robert Walker agreed.

1. Applications dismissed. There were insufficient prospects of success to justify permission to appeal.
2. The lower court had properly addressed the relevant statutory considerations. Section 15 includes the intentions of those who created the trust and the purposes for which the property is held. Those matters form part of a broader assessment of fairness in deciding what should happen to jointly owned property.
3. The evidence relied on concerning intention was a candid answer to a hypothetical question about what might happen if the parties separated. The court considered it unsafe to build substantial conclusions on such evidence, particularly where the judge had taken it into account.
4. The defendant’s hardship was material, but it had to be balanced against the claimant’s position. The claimant could not afford to live in the investment property and was living in a caravan. The order for sale and equal division was plainly within the discretionary range.
5. The applications for extension and permission were dismissed. The formal order recorded that the application for permission to appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Applications for an extension and permission to appeal were dismissed.
• Rhyl County Court: His Honour Judge Moseley QC found that the parties were joint owners of both properties and ordered their sale, with the proceeds divided equally.