Jones v Challenger: CA 1960

The test under the section was whether it was inequitable to make the order for sale where one of the joint beneficiaries, who in that case were ex-husband and wife, wished to realise their investment in the property.
Held: Referring to the statement of principle in in re Mayo, described as ‘a simple uncomplicated case of a trust for sale of freehold property, where the beneficiaries were brother and sister, and where there was no suggestion that either of them were intended or even wished to occupy the property . . But this simple principle cannot prevail where the trust itself in the circumstances in which it was made show that there was a secondary or collateral object besides that of sale . . it is at any rate wrong and inequitable for one of the parties to the trust to invoke the letter of the trust in order to defeat one of its purposes, whether that purpose be written or unwritten, and the court will not permit it.’


Devlin LJ


[1960] 1 All ER 785, [1961] 1 QB 176


Law of Property Act 1925 30


England and Wales


CitedIn re Mayo ChD 1943
The court discussed the duty of trustees to sell in the absence of unanimity: ‘The trust for sale will prevail, unless all three trustees agree in exercising the power to postpone.’ . .

Cited by:

CitedWilkinson v Chief Adjudication Officer CA 24-Mar-2000
The claimant owned a half share in a property. It was said that this brought her disposable capital above the limit to make a claim. She had inherited it, but had transferred it to her brother in satisfaction of her mother’s wishes. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Trusts

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.189980