White v White [2004]
Share
White v White [2004] 2 FLR 321 established a crucial legal principle concerning the interpretation of intention under Section 15(1)(b) of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TLATA). The key point highlighted in this case is that the intention referred to in Section 15(1)(b) of TLATA pertains to the common intention of individuals involved in creating the trust. Any change in this intention must be unanimous and common to all parties who participated in establishing the trust.
A couple purchased a home before the birth of their daughter. Subsequently, after their separation, the man obtained an order for the sale of the house under Section 14 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TLATA). The woman contested the order, arguing that the judge had failed to consider the property's purpose as a family home, not solely a matrimonial home.
The Court of Appeal upheld the sale order, emphasising that the intended purpose was as a matrimonial home. Arden LJ, in her analysis, clarified that under Section 15(1)(b) of TLATA, the intention referred to is the common intention of all individuals involved in creating the trust prior to its establishment. This interpretation stems from Section 15(1)(a), which speaks of "the intentions of the person or persons…who created the trust".
According to Arden LJ, any change in the purpose of the trust requires the consent of all parties involved. This stands in contrast to Section 15(1)(c), which addresses the welfare of any minor and allows for consideration beyond the original intentions. In the specific circumstances of the case, where the house was purchased before the daughter's birth, the court found that the original purpose was to provide a matrimonial home. Importantly, the man had not consented to a change in the use of the property as a family home after the birth of their daughter.
This case underscores the significance of the common intention of all parties involved in creating a trust under TLATA. It establishes that any alteration in the purpose of the trust requires unanimous consent, providing clarity on the interpretation of intention within the context of family homes and property disputes.
A couple purchased a home before the birth of their daughter. Subsequently, after their separation, the man obtained an order for the sale of the house under Section 14 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TLATA). The woman contested the order, arguing that the judge had failed to consider the property's purpose as a family home, not solely a matrimonial home.
The Court of Appeal upheld the sale order, emphasising that the intended purpose was as a matrimonial home. Arden LJ, in her analysis, clarified that under Section 15(1)(b) of TLATA, the intention referred to is the common intention of all individuals involved in creating the trust prior to its establishment. This interpretation stems from Section 15(1)(a), which speaks of "the intentions of the person or persons…who created the trust".
According to Arden LJ, any change in the purpose of the trust requires the consent of all parties involved. This stands in contrast to Section 15(1)(c), which addresses the welfare of any minor and allows for consideration beyond the original intentions. In the specific circumstances of the case, where the house was purchased before the daughter's birth, the court found that the original purpose was to provide a matrimonial home. Importantly, the man had not consented to a change in the use of the property as a family home after the birth of their daughter.
This case underscores the significance of the common intention of all parties involved in creating a trust under TLATA. It establishes that any alteration in the purpose of the trust requires unanimous consent, providing clarity on the interpretation of intention within the context of family homes and property disputes.
