French v Barcham [2008]
Share
French v Barcham [2008] 1 WLR 1124 addressed the issue of whether a trustee in bankruptcy could be entitled to occupation rent based on the court's equitable jurisdiction outside of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TLATA), rejecting the precedent set in Stack v Dowden [2007].
The facts involved a couple who were registered proprietors of their home when the husband faced bankruptcy. The couple continued to live in the bungalow, leading the husband's trustee in bankruptcy to seek an order for its sale under Section 14 of TLATA. The key issue was whether the trustee in bankruptcy was entitled to occupation rent from the wife.
The court, presided over by Blackburne J, ruled that occupation rent could indeed be ordered to be paid to the trustee in bankruptcy. The judgment clarified that TLATA did not preclude the court from exercising its broader general equitable jurisdiction to order occupation rent outside of the statutory provisions in Section 13 of TLATA.
Blackburne J specifically rejected the interpretation in Stack v Dowden, asserting that the absence of a statutory right of occupation did not bar a party from claiming occupation rent in any circumstances. The court emphasised that occupation rent should be granted where it would be unreasonable for a co-owner to occupy the premises, considering factors such as the identity and relationship of the co-owners. However, if it is reasonable for a co-owner to occupy but chooses not to, no occupation rent can be claimed.
The court established that a trustee in bankruptcy should normally be granted occupation rent, as it is unreasonable for the trustee to claim a right to occupy. Exceptions may exist if there was an understanding that no occupation rent would be charged, or if the occupying co-owner had no reasonable means of discovering the other co-owner's bankruptcy. It is worth noting that the reasonableness rule articulated in this case was rejected in the subsequent case of Davis v Jackson.
The facts involved a couple who were registered proprietors of their home when the husband faced bankruptcy. The couple continued to live in the bungalow, leading the husband's trustee in bankruptcy to seek an order for its sale under Section 14 of TLATA. The key issue was whether the trustee in bankruptcy was entitled to occupation rent from the wife.
The court, presided over by Blackburne J, ruled that occupation rent could indeed be ordered to be paid to the trustee in bankruptcy. The judgment clarified that TLATA did not preclude the court from exercising its broader general equitable jurisdiction to order occupation rent outside of the statutory provisions in Section 13 of TLATA.
Blackburne J specifically rejected the interpretation in Stack v Dowden, asserting that the absence of a statutory right of occupation did not bar a party from claiming occupation rent in any circumstances. The court emphasised that occupation rent should be granted where it would be unreasonable for a co-owner to occupy the premises, considering factors such as the identity and relationship of the co-owners. However, if it is reasonable for a co-owner to occupy but chooses not to, no occupation rent can be claimed.
The court established that a trustee in bankruptcy should normally be granted occupation rent, as it is unreasonable for the trustee to claim a right to occupy. Exceptions may exist if there was an understanding that no occupation rent would be charged, or if the occupying co-owner had no reasonable means of discovering the other co-owner's bankruptcy. It is worth noting that the reasonableness rule articulated in this case was rejected in the subsequent case of Davis v Jackson.