Chaston & Anor v Chaston [2018] EWHC 1672 (Ch) (05 July 2018)

Chaston & Anor v Chaston [2018] EWHC 1672 (Ch) (05 July 2018)

The district judge did not err in law or act unjustly in procedure; he properly exercised discretion under section 14 TOLATA by directing sale to the respondent at a price determined by valuation, taking into account all relevant factors including the wishes of beneficiaries, intentions of trust creators, and prior agreement in principle. The appeal court found no basis to interfere with the decision.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1672 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant: Alfred Christopher John Chaston; Appellant: Judith Ann Arnold; Respondent: Robert Anthony Chaston
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From District Judge Watkins, Order Dated 23 January 2018
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (tolata), Exercise of Judicial Discretion, Sale of Trust Property, Beneficiaries' Rights, Valuation of Property, Judicial Review of Lower Court Decisions
Trusts and Estates Property Law Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (tolata) Exercise of Judicial Discretion Sale of Trust Property Beneficiaries' Rights Valuation of Property Judicial Review of Lower Court Decisions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alfred Christopher John Chaston

Appellant

Judith Ann Arnold

Appellant

Robert Anthony Chaston

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From District Judge Watkins, Order Dated 23 January 2018

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court had power under section 14 of TOLATA 1996 to direct sale of trust property to one beneficiary rather than on the open market
  2. 2 Whether the district judge erred in taking into account an agreement in principle among beneficiaries for sale to the respondent
  3. 3 Whether the wishes of beneficiaries and intentions of trust creators were properly considered

Ratio Decidendi

The district judge did not err in law or act unjustly in procedure; he properly exercised discretion under section 14 TOLATA by directing sale to the respondent at a price determined by valuation, taking into account all relevant factors including the wishes of beneficiaries, intentions of trust creators, and prior agreement in principle. The appeal court found no basis to interfere with the decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • District judge's order for sale to respondent at valuation stands