All your resources at your fingertips.Learn More
(Queen's Bench Division; Administrative Court; Underhill J, 16 October 2008)
The mother and father were in the process of divorcing. The mother claimed to be beneficially entitled to one half of the property, which she had occupied for many years with the couple's son. The father issued possession proceedings against both the mother and the son, and then sought summary judgment for possession against the son on the basis that the son had no defence to the possession claim. The son argued that because the mother's right to give him permission to occupy the property derived from her right of occupation under Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, s 12, the father could restrict the son's entitlement to occupy the property only under s 13(1), and needed the court's approval under s 13(7). The judge rejected the son's argument, holding that the father was entitled to terminate the son's licence to occupy the property.
Dismissing the appeal, the court concluded that the only beneficiaries under s 12 of the 1996 Act were the mother and father; the son was not a beneficiary under s 12 and had no rights. Section 13(1) was therefore not engaged.
Get a FREE trial today! The fastest way to access the latest law reports, case law, commentary,...