Curtis v Buchanan-Wollaston [1939]
Share
Curtis v Buchanan-Wollaston [1939] Ch 738, also referred to as Re Buchanan-Wollaston’s Conveyance [1939], is an English land law case concerning the sale of land. The court, despite the presumption of sale under the old law, refused to grant an order for sale under Section 30 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925) where the agreed purpose of the land purchase could still be carried out.
Four individuals collectively agreed to purchase a plot of land with the intention of keeping it as an open space. They entered into a mutual deed of covenant, stipulating that any transaction involving the land required unanimous agreement from all parties. Subsequently, one of the parties applied, against the opposition of the others, to have the piece of land sold under Section 30 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
The Court of Appeal refused the order for sale. Sir Greene MR, in delivering the judgment, highlighted that a court of equity must examine all the circumstances of the case. It needs to consider whether it is just and proper to make an order of sale, with one of those circumstances being the contractual agreement entered into by the parties.
Sir Greene MR emphasised that circumstances might change in the future, for example, if all the parties have died, and the court would not prevent a sale at that point. The court must assess whether the person applying for the execution of the trust for sale is someone whose voice should be allowed to prevail. In this specific case, the court would not permit the voice of the individual who was in breach of his obligation to prevail.
If this case were to arise today under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TLATA), there is an expectation that the court would likely refuse an order of sale. Under Section 15(1)(b) of TLATA, the court is required to consider the purposes for which the property subject to the trust is held. In situations where the agreed-upon purpose, such as keeping the land as an open space, is still feasible, the court may be inclined to preserve that purpose rather than order a sale. This aligns with the modern legal framework that places a strong emphasis on the intentions and purposes of the parties involved in co-ownership arrangements.
Four individuals collectively agreed to purchase a plot of land with the intention of keeping it as an open space. They entered into a mutual deed of covenant, stipulating that any transaction involving the land required unanimous agreement from all parties. Subsequently, one of the parties applied, against the opposition of the others, to have the piece of land sold under Section 30 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
The Court of Appeal refused the order for sale. Sir Greene MR, in delivering the judgment, highlighted that a court of equity must examine all the circumstances of the case. It needs to consider whether it is just and proper to make an order of sale, with one of those circumstances being the contractual agreement entered into by the parties.
Sir Greene MR emphasised that circumstances might change in the future, for example, if all the parties have died, and the court would not prevent a sale at that point. The court must assess whether the person applying for the execution of the trust for sale is someone whose voice should be allowed to prevail. In this specific case, the court would not permit the voice of the individual who was in breach of his obligation to prevail.
If this case were to arise today under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TLATA), there is an expectation that the court would likely refuse an order of sale. Under Section 15(1)(b) of TLATA, the court is required to consider the purposes for which the property subject to the trust is held. In situations where the agreed-upon purpose, such as keeping the land as an open space, is still feasible, the court may be inclined to preserve that purpose rather than order a sale. This aligns with the modern legal framework that places a strong emphasis on the intentions and purposes of the parties involved in co-ownership arrangements.
