Re Buchanan-Wollaston’s, [1939] Ch 738

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

A group of four travelers purchased a rural property adjacent to a historical structure, forming a trust that prohibited any sale to maintain open space for community events. Over time, two original purchasers remained as trustees while the other shares passed to distant relatives. The property has grown increasingly expensive to upkeep, but local regulations still support its use for annual festivals. The trustees, facing financial strain, propose selling the property and argue the trust’s original objective is no longer viable. One beneficiary vehemently objects, insisting the land remains a valuable resource for ongoing local celebrations.


Which explanation best aligns with the principle in Re Buchanan-Wollaston’s Conveyance regarding when the courts may authorize a property sale despite a trust restriction?

Introduction

Re Buchanan-Wollaston’s Conveyance [1939] Ch 738 is an important case in property law dealing with trusts that restrict land sales. This decision clarifies when courts may permit the sale of land held under a trust, even when the trust terms block such action. The primary principle established is that the settlor’s expressed wishes hold significant weight but are not absolute in all cases. Courts can intervene to approve a sale if the trust’s initial objective becomes unworkable or if maintaining the restriction negatively affects the beneficiaries. For judicial action, clear evidence must show the trust’s aim is no longer achievable or that a sale would benefit those involved.

The Facts of Re Buchanan-Wollaston’s Conveyance

Four individuals purchased adjacent coastal properties. They agreed to prevent construction on the land to preserve an unobstructed sea view. This condition was included in the legal transfer, forming a trust. Later, two owners sought to sell their properties, while the other two opposed to protect the view.

The Trust’s Objective and Its Breakdown

The trust’s central aim was to sustain the sea view for all owners. The restriction on sales supported this goal. However, disagreement among the owners resulted in legal proceedings. The Court of Appeal determined whether the trust’s objective had been sufficiently compromised to justify overriding the sales restriction.

The Court’s Authority to Approve a Sale

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s finding that the trust’s purpose had not been entirely defeated. Selling two properties might reduce the view’s quality, but the core benefit for the remaining owners remained. The court denied the sale request. This case illustrates that while a trust’s objective is highly valued, courts might permit sales despite restrictions if the purpose becomes unworkable or harms beneficiaries.

Comparing Re Buchanan-Wollaston’s with Similar Cases

Re Buchanan-Wollaston’s Conveyance is frequently contrasted with cases such as Re Mayo’s Conveyance [1944] Ch 302, where a sale was approved despite a restriction. In Re Mayo, wartime conditions rendered the trust’s objective unworkable. This distinction highlights how specific circumstances determine whether a trust’s purpose remains viable.

Applying the Principles from Re Buchanan-Wollaston’s Conveyance

The principles from this case inform later rulings on trust-based sales restrictions. They assist courts in deciding when to permit sales, balancing the settlor’s aims against beneficiaries’ welfare. Courts assess whether the trust’s purpose is unachievable, the specific context, and whether a sale would safeguard beneficiaries’ interests. For instance, if external factors severely reduce land value, making maintenance impractical, courts might approve a sale to protect financial stakes.

Conclusion

Re Buchanan-Wollaston’s Conveyance remains a foundational case on trusts limiting land sales. It affirms that settlors’ intentions are highly respected but not absolute. Courts may authorize sales if the trust’s purpose fails or the restriction harms beneficiaries. This decision provides a framework to balance trust conditions with beneficiaries’ evolving circumstances. Cases like Re Mayo’s Conveyance demonstrate how factual differences shape outcomes. This legal domain reflects courts’ responsibility to ensure trusts operate fairly for those they serve.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal