Rittson-Thomas & Ors v Oxfordshire County Council

Under the School Sites Act 1841, the statutory reverter and power of sale must be interpreted together, using a broad and practical approach. A school site may continue to be used for statutory purposes where the school has moved to suitable new premises and the old site is being sold to fund that move. Section 14 does not require the old site to be sold before, or at the same time as, the new premises are acquired or improved. Where the statutory power is properly exercised before reverter occurs, the trust under the Reverter of Sites Act 1987 does not arise.

The claimants, descendants of the original grantor, sought a declaration that they were beneficially entitled under the Reverter of Sites Act 1987 to most of the proceeds from the defendant local authority’s sale of land formerly used as part of Nettlebed School.

The school moved to improved premises on adjoining land in February 2006. The former site was sold in September 2007, and the proceeds were used towards the cost of the new premises. The central issue was whether cessation of use of the old site as a school caused an immediate reverter before the sale, or whether the sale formed part of a lawful statutory scheme under section 14 of the School Sites Act 1841.

1. The claim was dismissed. The claimants were refused a declaration that 93.17% of the sale proceeds were held on trust for them.

2. Sections 2 and 14 of the School Sites Act 1841 must be read together. The court adopted the broad and practical approach identified in Fraser v Canterbury Diocesan Board of Finance (No 2) [2006] 1 AC 377. The question is not answered solely by asking whether the old premises stood empty after the school moved.

3. Although the school had moved from the old site, that site was being sold to fund new buildings for the same public elementary school on an adjacent, more suitable site. It could therefore still be regarded as being used for the purposes of the statutory trust.

4. Section 14 did not require a chronological sequence in which the old land was sold first and the proceeds were then applied to acquire or improve the replacement premises. The statutory language permitted the replacement premises to be funded before the sale, provided the sale was for the purpose of moving the school and the money arising from it was applied to the new premises.

5. The court accepted that reverter is an event which, once it occurs, is automatic and irrevocable. The statutory power of sale must therefore be exercised before reverter. In the circumstances, however, the defendant’s sale was a lawful exercise of section 14, so section 6(2) of the Reverter of Sites Act 1987 prevented a trust under section 1 from arising.

6. Requiring a school to remain open until sale could create practical difficulties, depress sale proceeds, or encourage undesirable educational arrangements. Those consequences supported the less restrictive interpretation.

First-instance determination. The judgment does not state any prior appellate decision in this litigation.