## Facts

- The case concerned two doctors who jointly owned property used as a medical practice.
- Disputes arose regarding the use and division of the shared premises.
- Physical partition of the property would have disrupted its functionality for both doctors’ work.
- Proceedings were brought to determine whether an occupation order or partition was the appropriate remedy under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA).
- The lower court granted an occupation order, and this was appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether courts should favour partition or occupation orders in resolving disputes under TOLATA where physical division of property is impractical.
2. The extent to which courts should consider section 15 TOLATA factors when making orders about the use or partition of jointly owned land.
3. Whether practicality and the parties’ particular circumstances should guide the decision between partition and occupation.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal upheld the occupation order, confirming it as an appropriate remedy where physical division would harm the co-owners’ use of the property.
- It was held that partition is no longer the automatic or preferred solution under TOLATA.
- The court emphasised that section 15 requires balancing all relevant factors rather than giving overriding weight to any one consideration.
- Practical outcomes and the real interests of parties are to guide the court’s approach to co-ownership disputes.

## Legal Principles

- Section 14 of TOLATA grants courts broad discretion to make orders regarding jointly owned land, including for partition or occupation.
- Section 15 sets out factors courts must consider: the trust’s purpose, intended use of the property, children’s needs, and creditors’ interests.
- Courts should favour remedies that are workable and fair, with partition ordered only where suitable and not as the default.
- Occupation orders may be used where physical division of property is unworkable or detrimental.
- Judicial flexibility, with fact-sensitive analysis, underpins use of the TOLATA framework in property disputes.

## Conclusion

Rodway v Landy established that TOLATA 1996 requires courts to prioritise practical and fair solutions in co-ownership disputes, weighing all section 15 factors and permitting occupation orders where partition is not feasible, thereby shaping modern property law approaches to shared ownership.

Rodway v Landy [2001] Ch 703