TOLATA Claims9 Jun 2022 | James Mayall
What are trusts of land?
Property ownership is not always a straightforward legal issue, particularly where the parties are cohabitees or there is disagreement as to the nature of the ownership.
We can assist if you need specialist advice about your property ownership and rights, whether or not you are married or separating. Our specialist property litigation solicitors are experts in this complex field, working to protect your financial and property interests.
Your legal rights are relatively weak if you are a cohabitee but are unmarried. Were you and your partner to separate, you do not enjoy the same rights as a married couple. This means you cannot bring property claims under family law as spouses can.
Instead, your property rights will likely be determined depending on how you own the property. A key principle is that where more than one person is the legal owner, the joint owners hold the property on trust. The trust can be created:
- Expressly by way of a formal declaration of trust
- By a transfer of the property to two more people or
- By virtue of the parties’ conduct.
In the case of a relationship breakdown or other family dispute, complicating issues can arise. For example, a non-owner contributed towards the purchase price or has made ongoing financial contributions to the mortgage or improvements to the property.
- As joint tenants in equity – Each owns the whole property. None owns a specific share in the property, nor can they sell or leave a specific share to someone else. On the death of a joint tenant, the survivor/s automatically inherits the property.
Spouses often own the family home in this way, with the effect that the surviving spouse becomes the sole owner of the property on death
- As tenants in common – Each co-owner owns a specific share in the property, whether in equal or unequal shares. Each can leave their identifiable share to someone other than the other co-owner/s on death.
For instance, three siblings decide to buy a property and contribute a third each to the purchase price. They can elect to co-own the property as tenants in common, thus protecting their individual share.
Importantly, a joint tenancy can be ‘severed’ – converting it into a tenancy in common. This can be done simply by one owner giving ‘notice of severance’ to the other/s (the notice will also ideally be registered at HM Land Registry).
In the event of a relationship breakdown, it is wise to consider severing any joint property tenancy to protect your share in the property. A joint tenancy is automatically severed by divorce or by the bankruptcy of one of the parties.
The registered title of the property at HM Land Registry will indicate the nature of the co-ownership, but this is not necessarily conclusive.
Is there an implied or constructive trust?
In some cases, the nature of co-ownership can be less certain – particularly if nothing is set out in writing. The parties may have bought the property and contributed unequal amounts to the purchase price – but the registered title indicates they are beneficial joint tenants.
However, it is not always the case that the nature of your ownership is conclusive based on the land registry records alone: we may be able to prove that an implied or constructive trust exists in your favour.
What is an implied trust?
It may be treated as an implied trust where you have evidence to show it was the common intention that there would be a tenancy in common (or you can demonstrate you and your co-owner later decided that your respective shares would alter).
Relevant factors include who paid the deposit, who paid the mortgage instalments, and in what contributions.
What is a constructive trust?
Similarly, a constructive trust may arise where it is inequitable or unfair that one party, because of their conduct, denies the other their beneficiary interest in the property.
While these are general rules, each case is considered on its own strengths and merits. Gathering as much evidence as possible and discussing your situation with our specialist lawyers as early as possible is prudent.
What is TOLATA?
TOLATA stands for the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. It is a piece of legislation that primarily deals with disputes relating to co-owned properties, trusts, and the appointment of trustees.
The main purpose of TOLATA is to regulate the rights and responsibilities of individuals who jointly own property, especially residential properties, and are in dispute over ownership, use, or management. It provides a legal framework for resolving conflicts and determining the interests and shares of the co-owners.
Under TOLATA, the court has the power to make various orders, including orders for the sale of the property, the transfer of shares in the property, and orders specifying the rights and obligations of the co-owners. The court aims to achieve a fair and equitable resolution based on the case’s individual circumstances.
In any property ownership dispute, we work hard with our clients to resolve with the co-owner/s to avoid expensive court action.
If an agreement cannot be agreed, we may advise that an application be made to the County Court under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA) to determine the nature and extent of property ownership.
A dispute may involve, for instance, an argument as to the proportion each of you should receive on the sale of the property; or which party should buy the other out to enable the other to remain living there.
TOLATA is a complex area of law, and our specialists will guide you through how we can help protect your interests.
To prepare an application, we will need evidence of your intentions and those of your co-owner(s) when you purchased the property, and anything since then that shows a change in your intentions. This will need to be supported by documentary evidence of, for instance, who pays what proportion of the mortgage instalments and who foots the bill for service bills, repairs and home improvements.
When considering an application, the court must consider various factors, including:
- The purpose for which the property was purchased and the wishes of the beneficial owners.
- The welfare of any child in occupation
- The interests of any secured creditor of any beneficiary.
If the court confirms an implied or constructive trust exists, it is usually binding on the parties.
Bagum V Hafiz And Hai 
In the case of Bagum v Hafiz and Hai  EWCA Civ 801, the Court of Appeal considered, for the first time, whether the extent of its discretion under section 14, Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (“TLATA”) permitted the Court to order one of the beneficiaries of the trust to sell his interest in a property to one of the other beneficiaries. The Court also considered the powers of the Court under s14 and s15 of TLATA when making an order for sale.
The property was owned by the Claimant, Mrs Bagum (C) and her two sons, the Defendants, Mr Hafiz (D1) and Mr Hai (D2). All parties had been living in the property. There was then a family breakdown which resulted in D2 and his wife moving out. The parties executed a declaration of trust, resulting in C, D1, and D2 becoming trustees of the property, holding the property on trust for themselves in equal shares. Following various attempts by D2 to force C to sell the property, C issued proceedings seeking an order that D2 sell his share to D1, or in the alternative order for sale. C wanted, if possible, to remain in the family home (purchased by her late husband). D1 supported this position.
A preliminary issues trial was ordered to consider whether the Court could force D2 to sell his share of the property to D2. The first instance Judge found that TLATA did not provide power to the Court to make such an order. However, the judge made an unusual order to sell the property. The property was initially to be offered for sale to D1 at a price to be determined by the Court. If he did not complete the purchase within six weeks, it would be offered for sale on the open market. This, in effect, gave D1 the first opportunity to purchase the property. This was an order C and D1 were content with in that it allowed them and their other family members to remain in the property, provided D1 could purchase the property within the 6-week. The Judge made a finding that the purpose of the trust was for the property to continue to be used as a family home and to protect the financial interest of all three parties in respect of the property.
D2 appealed against this order to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held, agreeing with the first instance Judge, that a direction to one beneficiary to sell to others would not be an exercise by the trustees of their functions and thus not something that the Court could order under s14 of TLATA. The ambit of section 14, TLATA, gives the Court a wide discretion in relation to “the exercise by the trustees of any of their functions”. However, directing one beneficiary to sell to another was not one of those functions.
The Court of Appeal then considered whether the order was open to the Judge. This was the point that D2 had appealed. The court held that, whilst it did not have the power to direct disposal of a beneficiary’s interest, it did have the power to direct trustees of land to sell the trust property to particular beneficiaries without the consent of the beneficiary or beneficiaries to whom the land is not being sold to. This power is not excluded merely because it has the same effect as the sale of one beneficiary’s share to another, which is excluded.
Lord Justice Briggs commented, at , that “the clear object and effect of sections 14 and 15 is to confer upon the court a substantially wider discretion, exercised upon the basis of wider considerations, than might be enjoyed by the trustees themselves, acting without either the consent of their beneficiaries or an order of the court. … All this departs from the general rule of equity which requires the trustees single-mindedly to advance the interests of the beneficiaries as a class, without preferring some of them over others”. The Court of Appeal thus found that the Court is not rigidly constrained in exercising its discretion by principles of the law of equity. However, such principles constrain the trustees themselves.
The Court of Appeal also found that the Judge was entitled to make the order she had, even though it was not the usual order for sale that would be made (whereby all beneficiaries would be entitled to bid for the property). In reaching her decision, the Judge had properly considered the purpose of creating the trust: to provide a home for C and D1 while securing D2’s financial interest. The Court did not consider there to be a significant risk of an undervaluation by an expert. D2’s appeal was therefore dismissed.
Kingsley v Kingsley 
This case has been followed and applied in a number of cases and more recently in the case of Kingsley v Kingsley . This case involved the termination of a farming partnership on the death of one of the two sibling partners. The partnership between a brother and sister had for nearly 40 years operated from the family farm. The brother passed away and his interest passed to the widow who wished to sell the farm on the open market. The sister resisted the order as he wanted to continue the farming business and wanted an opportunity to acquire her brother’s interest so that she could do so.
Co-owners of property
Following Bagum v Hafiz, the court accepted that he had jurisdiction to make the order and gave the sister two months to purchase her brother’s share. There were a number of factors the judge took into account namely:
- That an expert could value the farm with sufficient certainty to allow a judge to be satisfied that the brother’s widow would receive a proper value for her share.
- The purpose of the trust which the court determined was to run a family farm
- He also determined that the widow’s interest was purely financial.
It appears the Bagum case has allowed co-owners when being forced to sell a property to retain property historically owned by a family within the family.
How can we help with TOLATA claims?
The specialist property litigation solicitors regularly consult with the divorce and family experts here at Osbornes to ensure our clients’ interests are properly protected.
For strategic advice on trusts of property and land law and how we can protect your interests, contact us today.
Contact us about a TOLATA Claim
For a free initial conversation call 0207 485 8811
Email us Send us an email and we’ll get back to you
“Shilpa is knowledgeable and helpful. She is not afraid to challenge the boundaries for her clients, with excellent results.”
“Shilpa combines the fierce representation of her clients’ best interests with the reasonable and constructive attitude that the Court always looks for in modern litigation. She has invaluable tactical awareness and skilfully handles complex and unusual cases and difficult opponents. As a barrister it is a pleasure to be instructed by her because you so often find that she has already taken the steps that you would have recommended had you been the client’s first point of contact. Her preparation of cases for trial is extremely thorough and helps ensure a positive result before you have set foot in Court.”
“Thank you so much for your help. You were efficient, clear and advised me well in addition to being very pleasant to work with.”
“I would like to sincerely thank you for all the hard work in assisting me to resolve my rather unusual and complicated case. Last 2 years were very stressful and intensive and often only your professional approach and personal realistic but positive attitude helped me not to give up. The uncertainty weight of more than 10 years is off my shoulders thanks to you and your colleagues. Thanks once again for your legal advice, time, and efforts”.
“Mostly I am grateful that Shilpa was understanding about the delays caused by my illnesses, and that she stuck with me and got a good deal for my tenancy. I did feel she fought to protect me and my rights. I appreciate that she kept me informed about progress, sending copies of emails with the other side and consulting me when necessary. I appreciated her eye for detail on legal matters and how she stood firm against a somewhat tricky opposing solicitor.”
“Shilpa was very thorough in the advice she provided and I was immediately put at ease with her involvement. She works hard to achieve the agreed objective and I very much appreciate her help in my matter.”
“Shilpa was very diligent in her attention to detail and her pursuit of all necessary documentation; she showed great determination in the face of many requests by the other party’s solicitor to let certain things slide. She was thorough and professional which gave us a great sense of security.”
Shilpa really helped us take charge of the situation and helped resolve this property dispute. I would not hesitate to recommend her or the team to anyone in a similar situation.
On first meeting Shilpa I was sure that she understood immediately my requirements, and was sympathetic both to my financial restraints and my emotional state. She achieved everything I asked of her and proved to be invaluable, professional and efficient
At every step Shilpa alleviated any concerns and stresses we had. Always fast to respond, always professional and super knowledgeable.
Shilpa has helped us through some key property litigation matters (residential and commercial) since 2014 and has delivered on every occasion. One particular issue had kept us in a state of stress and tension for almost a decade and after getting in touch with Shilpa she was able to help us bring the matter to a peaceful and successful conclusion.
I received a call from Shilpa Mathuradas a couple of hours after filling the enquiry form for a callback. She actively listened to my party wall concerns responding with gentle professionalism, answering my concerns, letting me know what is and is not possible and when best to bring in a solicitor. All this within 10 minutes. Excellent.
If I had another reason to have to seek legal advice again, I wouldn’t hesitate to use Shilpa, and would recommend her to anybody who needed legal advice.
Shilpa was professional, realistic, and unflappable. Shilpa managed to persuade a reluctant witness to come forward to support my case. She obviously knows her subject very well.
I always had full confidence in Shilpa keeping my best interests at heart. I often didn’t understand the legal language, and she would follow this up with a phone call and patiently explain.
Related InsightsVIEW ALL
Leasehold update: A new Leasehold and Freehold Bill...
Yesterday, 7th November 2023, in the King’s Speech we heard the following: “My Ministers will bring forward a bill to...Read more
The Building Safety Act 2022
This much awaited Act was introduced into Parliament on 5th May 2021 as a consequence of the Hackitt Report on Building...Read more
“Reasonableness” of Service Charges
It is well known that the relevant costs that a landlord incurs in the provision of services, repairs improvements, maintenance...Read more
Declaration of Trust for Property
If you are buying a property jointly, you may want to consider making a declaration of trust to record your...Read more
Lease Extension Negligence
What is Lease Extension Negligence? Solicitors Negligence when a Tenant claims a new lease of a flat under the Leasehold...Read more
Overlooking Nuisance Claims
Overlooking Nuisance Claims – net curtains not necessarily! I refer to the article https://osborneslaw.com/blog/overlooking-nuisance-claims-buy-some-net-curtains/ which concerned the...Read more
Rent Repayment Order: Rakusen v Jepsen
Rakusen v Jepsen & Others 2023 Judgement was given in this case on the 1st March 2023 and when it was settled...Read more
The government announced in 2021 the introduction of various leasehold reforms which will affect the leasehold system for properties in England...Read more
Transfer of Equity Stamp Duty
Do I Pay Stamp Duty Land Tax When Transferring Property into My Partner’s Name? When it comes to property...Read more
Shared Ownership Stamp Duty
Do you pay stamp duty on shared ownership? When you buy a new shared ownership property, you are given two...Read more
Severance of a Joint Tenancy
Severing a Joint Tenancy Normally, when couples buy a property together they do so as joint tenants. This means they...Read more
Tenants in Common vs Joint Tenants
Tenants in Common vs Joint Tenants: Which is best for buying a property together? When buying a property with someone...Read more
Japanese Knotweed: Knot in my backyard again!
Many will have read the recent case in which a furniture designer pursued his seller successfully after he moved into...Read more
Stamp duty tax to remain the same until 2025
Good news for buyers as the current SDLT rates will remain until 2025 Buyers looking to purchase this year will be...Read more
Half of UK renters worried they will not...
As rent rises for the majority of UK renters, half are worried they will not be able to afford it...Read more
First-time buyer stamp duty exemption
Stamp duty is the bane of every home buyer, with only first-time buyers being exempt from paying the tax if...Read more
What are trusts of land? Property ownership is not always a straightforward legal issue, particularly where the parties are cohabitees...Read more
Right to Light Explained
Right to Light Law in the UK Property owners have a legal right to light as set out in the...Read more
Landlords and the Dangers of Rent-to-Rent
Rent-to-Rent refers to the practice of landlords letting a whole property to a tenant (usually a limited company), which is...Read more
The End of Ground Rents
The Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022 It has been confirmed that The Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022 will come into...Read more
Can I still claim adverse possession?
The principle of “adverse possession” commonly known as “squatters rights” is a principle which allows a person who does not...Read more
Buying a property where a Party Wall Award...
Buying a house with a party wall agreement Buying a property can already be a stressful process but finding out...Read more
The Risks Of Buying Properties Off Plan!
The Daily Mail reported that 300 families a week have to move into shoddy newly built homes. Not all will have...Read more
Costly clauses missed by lawyers in leasehold contracts
A mum has been left facing a bill of millions of pounds a year for the ground rent of her...Read more