Thiebaud v Thiebaud & Anor

A court may require a party to give an expert access to the home where the inspection is relevant to pending proceedings and the order is appropriate. Such an order does not, without more, breach Article 8. Article 6 permits courts to impose procedural requirements and requires parties to obey valid court orders. Debarring a party from defending may be justified where that party deliberately refuses to comply with an order, particularly after repeated warnings. In exercising powers concerning a trust of land, the court must consider the factors in section 15 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. Family interests do not necessarily prevail where the trust was not created principally to provide a family home and continued occupation frustrates its purpose.

The claimant funded the purchase and renovation of a house conveyed into the names of his brother and sister-in-law. He claimed that the property was held on trust for the brothers and sought a sale. The defendants contended that the money was a gift and that the house was their home.

After repeated procedural defaults, the defendants were ordered to permit inspection and valuation of the property. They refused. The county court struck out their defence and debarred them from defending. It later declared the beneficial interests, ordered a sale and required the defendants to vacate. The defendants applied for permission to appeal, relying on Articles 6 and 8, the First Protocol and sections 14 and 15 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996.

1. Applications dismissed. The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal against both county court orders.
2. Requiring access for a quantity surveyor and valuer, pursuant to a valid and unappealed order, was not contrary to Article 8. The court was entitled to make such an order where access was relevant to evidence required in the proceedings.
3. Article 6 does not prevent courts from prescribing procedures or insisting that their orders are obeyed. Justice is a two-way process, and no system of justice can operate if deliberate non-compliance is tolerated. In the circumstances, striking out the defence and debarring the defendants was a permissible response to the first defendant’s unequivocal refusal to comply, particularly in light of the procedural history and earlier warnings.
4. After the defence had been struck out, the county court was required to determine the substantive relief on the evidence available. It properly considered the factors in section 15 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, accepted the claimant’s evidence about the trust’s purpose and treated the defendants’ family interests as carrying less weight because providing a family home was not the trust’s initial purpose. Continued occupation contrary to that purpose justified the order for sale.
5. The loss of a home may be justified under Article 8 where necessary to vindicate another person’s property rights. The court saw no basis for interfering with the sale and possession orders. Lord Justice Robert Walker agreed with Lady Justice Hale.

• Wandsworth County Court: His Honour Judge Rose struck out the defence and debarred the defendants from defending, then declared the trust interests, ordered sale of the property and ordered the defendants to vacate.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was refused and the applications were dismissed. Possession was ordered, with enforcement postponed until 4 April 2002 at 4.00 pm.