In absence of consultation, it is possible that a beneficiary could obtain an injunction restraining the trustees’ actions
1 of 18
Chan v Leung (2003)
There is no s 12 right to occupy if the prop is unavailable or unsuitable for occupation by the beneficiary
2 of 18
Rodway v Landy (2001)
The trustees might exclude the entitlement of one or more beneficiaries to occupy – but NOT all of them
3 of 18
Rodway v Landy (2001)
Conditions attached to right to occ must be reasonable and include e.g. a req’t that the occupying beneficiary pays all outgoings and expenses in relation to the land
4 of 18
French v Banham (2008)
If a beneficiary is excluded from the land, the occupiers might be required by trustee under s 13(6) to pay rent to a non-resident co-owner
5 of 18
Murphy v Gooch (2007)
An occ rent can be ordered in any case when nec to do justice between the parties
6 of 18
Rahnema v Rahbari (2008)
The amount of any rent to be paid falls to be determined on the basis of expert evidence
7 of 18
City of London BS v Flegg (1986)
Overreaching rule applies to both unregd and regd land
8 of 18
Williams & Glyn’s Bank v Boland (1981)
Mrs B’s rights did bind the bank as they were an overriding int as actual occupation
9 of 18
Re Evers Trust (1980)
No evidence that husband had any need to realise his investment, but it was clear that sale would put wife and children in very difficult position, thus, NO sale
10 of 18
Bank of Ireland v Bell (2001)
The child was approaching 18 and thus his welfare was only a minor consideration – Mrs B’s poor heath was a relevant factor, but only to the extent of postponing sale
11 of 18
Edwards v Edwards (2010)
Predominant consideration was whether the creditor was receiving proper recompense for being deprived of his money, the repayment of which was overdue
12 of 18
Everitt v Budhram (2010)
Bankrupt and his wife’s chronic medical conditions were relevant factors andf justified sale being postponed for one year
13 of 18
Re Bremner (1999)
Bankrupt was dying of cancer and the court postponed sale until 3 months after death
14 of 18
Re Citro (1991)
Loss of a home and the need to change schools are NOT exceptional circums for purposes of s 335A(3)
15 of 18
Re Citro (1991)
General rule= the interests of the creditors should prevail and that sale should be ordered by the court
16 of 18
Harris v Harris (1996)
Although relationships broke down between father and son, the purpose of the trust still survived which was to provide a home for them as long as either of them wished to stay there
17 of 18
Re Buchanan-Wollaston’s Conveyance (1939)
Court refused sale as it would NOT allow a man in breach of his oblign to prevail
18 of 18
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
There is no s 12 right to occupy if the prop is unavailable or unsuitable for occupation by the beneficiary
Back
Chan v Leung (2003)
Card 3
Front
The trustees might exclude the entitlement of one or more beneficiaries to occupy – but NOT all of them
Back
Card 4
Front
Conditions attached to right to occ must be reasonable and include e.g. a req’t that the occupying beneficiary pays all outgoings and expenses in relation to the land
Back
Card 5
Front
If a beneficiary is excluded from the land, the occupiers might be required by trustee under s 13(6) to pay rent to a non-resident co-owner
Comments
No comments have yet been made