Key Facts
- •Dispute over the sale of three parcels of land held in trust for Raymond Savage (two-thirds interest) and his siblings (Frank, Elizabeth, Charlie, and Harry).
- •Frank, who runs a business on the land, sought a right of pre-emption.
- •District Judge Owen granted Frank a right of pre-emption.
- •HHJ Farquhar overturned the District Judge's decision, holding that under section 15(3) TOLATA, only the majority beneficiary's wishes could be considered.
- •Frank appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Legal Principles
Interpretation of section 15(3) of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA) regarding the consideration of minority beneficiaries' wishes in disputes.
TOLATA, sections 14 and 15
Statutory interpretation principles: The court must ascertain Parliament's intention expressed in the language used, considering the grammatical meaning in context, including the structure and contents of the statute, historical background, legislative purpose, and relevant case law.
R v Secretary of State for the Environment etc, ex parte Spath Holme Limited [2001] 2 AC 349; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte O [2022] UKSC 3
Section 14 TOLATA grants the court broad discretion to make orders regarding trust land, while section 15 lists factors the court must consider but not exclusively.
Bagum v Hafiz [2016] Ch 241
The 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius' maxim is not absolute and should not be applied rigidly where the context suggests otherwise.
Bennion, Bailey and Norbury on Statutory Interpretation (8th ed)
The court's discretion under section 14 TOLATA is broad and not limited to the factors in section 15. The court can consider the circumstances and wishes of both majority and minority beneficiaries, though it is not obliged to consider the minority's wishes in a dispute.
White v White [2003] EWCA Civ 924
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal allowed Frank Savage's appeal.
The Judge misinterpreted section 15(3) TOLATA. The court's discretion under section 14 is broad, and section 15(3) does not prevent consideration of minority beneficiaries' wishes in a dispute, only that the court is not *obliged* to consider them.
The District Judge's order granting Frank a right of pre-emption was restored.
The District Judge considered all relevant circumstances and reached a sensible decision within his discretion under section 14.