This is an extract of our Regulating Trusts Of Land document, which we sell as part of our Land Law Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Land Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Regulating Trust of Land Occupation under TLATA 1996
When is there a right to occupy?
o S.12(1) Only beneficiaries with interests in possession can occupy - means that beneficiaries must be ascertainable
? (a) Purposes of trust must include occupation
? (b) Land held must be available for occupation
? (2) Land must also be suitable for occupation by beneficiary. o Smith: Do these condition have to be satisfied only at commencement of occupation? Or must they have to continue to be satisfied?
? Problem = if the latter view, what happens if some surprising event happens?
Purpose "changes" o E.g. that a house meant for joint occupation of a widowed mother and daughter becomes only occupied by daughter as mother goes and remarries and leaves?
? Can the purpose of the trust still be effective?
Availability changes o Section purports to confer right to occupy - unless snapshot view taken of trust only at time of creation
? Then to describe occupation as a right seems meaningless as it depends upon a continuing intention upon the part of the trustees.
Suitability of property changes o Chan v Leung :
? Held that this subsection looked not just at the property, but the personal characteristics and requirements of the beneficiary.
? Smith: suppose a widow has a life interest in a house - if she gets too old to look after house, can trustees insist she moves to more suitable accommodation?
Trustee control of the right to occupy o S.13(1): Trustees have power to determine the exercise of entitlements where two or more beneficiaries have right to occupy, but must allow at least one to occupy o S.13(2): Trustees can't
? (a) unreasonably restrict beneficiary's entitlement to land
? (b) restrict any right to an unreasonable extent
Rodway v Landy : Doctors co-own surgery. L suggests that split up practise by physically partitioning building equally.
Gibson LJ: Would make no sense if beneficiaries were all excluded from occupation of land o However, in a building which is able to be equally partitioned,
? the trustees should be able to exclude a beneficiary's entitlement to occupy one part +
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Land Law Notes.