## Facts

- Four individuals purchased adjoining coastal properties and agreed to prevent development on the land to preserve an unobstructed sea view.
- This agreement to prevent construction was formalized in the property transfer and established as a trust.
- Subsequently, two of the owners wanted to sell their properties, while the remaining two objected in order to protect their sea view.
- The disagreement led to legal proceedings concerning whether the properties could be sold despite the restrictive trust.

## Issues

1. Whether the court could permit the sale of land held under a trust that expressly restricted such sales.
2. Whether disagreement among owners and a change in circumstances justified overriding the trust’s restriction on sale.
3. Whether the trust’s original objective—to preserve the sea view—had been sufficiently compromised or rendered unworkable so as to allow judicial intervention.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that the trust’s purpose had not been wholly defeated; selling two properties might reduce the quality of the sea view but the core benefit for the other owners remained.
- The request to approve the sale of the properties was refused.
- The court reaffirmed that while a settlor's wishes are significant, they are not absolute, and judicial intervention is possible if a trust's purpose cannot be achieved or if the restriction harms beneficiaries.
- In this instance, the trust’s objective was deemed still achievable, so the restriction stood.

## Legal Principles

- The expressed intentions of a settlor in a trust are highly respected but not absolute.
- Courts may authorize a sale of trust property despite restrictive conditions if the trust’s central purpose becomes unworkable or if upholding the restriction would be detrimental to beneficiaries.
- The viability of a trust’s objective is determined by the practical ability to achieve the settlor’s purpose, assessed contextually.
- Factual differences, such as those in wartime or diminished property value (as in Re Mayo’s Conveyance [1944] Ch 302), can alter the balance between maintaining the restriction and permitting a sale.

## Conclusion

Re Buchanan-Wollaston’s Conveyance confirms that courts give significant weight to settlors’ aims, but will allow sales against restrictions if the trust’s purpose is thwarted or beneficiaries are harmed, ensuring the fair operation of such trusts.


Re Buchanan-Wollaston's Conveyance [1939] Ch 738