## Facts

- A divorced couple, Mr. Jones and Mrs. Challenger, jointly owned their former family home.
- Following divorce, Mrs. Challenger continued living in the property with her new husband.
- Mr. Jones sought a court order for the sale of the house so he could receive his share of the value.
- Mrs. Challenger opposed the sale, claiming she required the home for her new family.
- The case was decided prior to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, under section 17 of the Married Women’s Property Act 1882.

## Issues

1. Whether a joint owner, post-divorce, can compel the sale of a family home when the other owner wishes to remain in occupation.
2. Whether courts should order sale when the property's original role as the matrimonial home has ended.
3. How courts should balance the competing requirements and interests of both parties in property disputes after divorce.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that, where the home’s original function as a family residence has ceased to exist, sale should generally be ordered.
- The court acknowledged the wife's desire to remain but prioritised the husband’s right to realise his share, given the end of the property’s initial purpose.
- Joint ownership was found to entail equal rights to request sale and access the proceeds.
- The court distinguished the case from situations where the property's original role is ongoing, as illustrated by Bedson v Bedson [1965] 2 QB 666, where sale was refused due to continued business and residential use.

## Legal Principles

- Where the matrimonial home no longer serves its original family function, courts are likely to order sale to allow owners to realise their interests.
- The balancing of each party’s circumstances and requirements is central to determining whether to order a sale.
- Section 17 of the Married Women's Property Act 1882 empowered courts to resolve such disputes prior to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
- The principle from Jones v Challenger remains influential in subsequent property law, especially regarding sales following separation or divorce.

## Conclusion

Jones v Challenger [1961] 1 QB 176 remains a leading authority establishing that, when the purpose of a jointly owned family home ceases after divorce, courts may order its sale to ensure fair division between co-owners, provided no continuing family use exists.
