Martin v Martin

On an application concerning land held on an express trust, the court may order sale or partition under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. The trust’s purposes and the creators’ intentions are central. A claimed family or conservation purpose must be supported by the trust instrument or evidence, rather than inferred from family history alone. The court may consider the beneficiaries’ circumstances and wishes, and other case-specific factors relevant to achieving a practical resolution. Where co-ownership has irretrievably broken down, the court may order a sale to a special purchaser and partition of the balance if that best gives effect to the statutory factors and produces a clean break.

Two brothers jointly owned seven parcels of unregistered family land as tenants in common under an express trust to sell. Their relationship had broken down, and they accepted that they could no longer continue as co-owners. John sought the sale of parcels 3 to 7 to a special purchaser and partition of parcels 1 and 2. David opposed the proposed sale, wished to retain family land for conservation and proposed a different partition.

The trial issue was whether part of the land should be sold and the remainder partitioned, or whether all the land should be partitioned. The court also identified separate account and enquiry issues for later directions.

1. Disposition. Parcels 3 to 7 were ordered to be sold to the special purchaser for £845,000. Parcels 1 and 2 were partitioned, with parcel 1 vested in David and parcel 2 in John. David was required to make a balancing payment of £7,500 from his share of the sale proceeds.
2. The land was held under an express trust to sell. The court found no evidential basis for an additional purpose of preserving it for future family generations or conservation. Historic family ownership, previous sales and later environmental aspirations did not alter the trust’s purposes.
3. In exercising the jurisdiction under sections 7, 14 and 15 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, the court considered the creators’ intentions, the purposes of the trust, the beneficiaries’ circumstances and wishes, and the practical consequences of the competing proposals. The statutory matters are not exhaustive.
4. The breakdown in the brothers’ relationship, the absence of a workable basis for continued co-ownership, John’s access requirements and David’s conduct during the proceedings supported a clean break. Partitioning parcels 1 and 2 in the only feasible way avoided a shared boundary and further conflict, while the special purchaser’s offer justified selling parcels 3 to 7 together despite the lower market valuation.
5. The parties were directed to submit consequential directions. The account and enquiry concerning rents and other monies required a further hearing. Later information about the continuing tenancy might affect implementation but did not alter the judgment.