Re Buchanan-Wollaston’s Conveyance. Curtis v. Buchanan-Wollaston [1939] Ch. 738
Whether an order of sale could be sought where it would serve to contradict the purpose of contract.
Facts
Four owners of property with views of the ocean decided to jointly purchase the piece of land which was between their respective houses and the waterfront, so as to enable the protection of their views of the ocean by preventing any building on the land. Further, each owner agreed to a deed of covenant, whereby no single joint owner could sell the waterfront property without first informing the other three owners and obtaining their consent. Subsequently, one owner desired to sell the land and attempted to seek a Court order demanding the sale as per the trusts for sale system.
Issues
Whether an order of sale could be given by the Court in response to the request by a single owner to override the consent requirements of the other joint owners, where an express covenant had been made to prevent this.
Decision/Outcome
The Court held that an order of sale ought not be given as the covenant’s express purpose was to prevent one owner from selling the land without the others’ consent and so in ordering a sale of land, the law would be directly undermining the contract’s purpose and assisting a person in committing breach of contract. Further relevant was that the sale of the land would have likely entailed construction on the property, further undermining the original purpose of the agreement to purchase the property, namely protecting the ocean view.
Words: 261
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary accurately describes the facts and outcome of Re Buchanan-Wollaston’s Conveyance [1939] Ch 738. The decision remains good law as a historical illustration of how courts exercised their discretion in applications for sale under the old trust for sale regime.
However, readers should be aware that the legal framework governing co-ownership and orders for sale has changed significantly since 1939. The Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA 1996) abolished the doctrine of the trust for sale and replaced it with the trust of land. Applications for sale by co-owners are now governed by section 14 of TOLATA 1996, and the factors the court must consider are set out in section 15, which include the purposes for which the property is held and the intentions of the person who created the trust. The reasoning in Re Buchanan-Wollaston’s Conveyance — that the court should not order a sale where doing so would frustrate the express purpose of the arrangement — is broadly consistent with the section 15 framework, and the case is still sometimes cited as persuasive background. Nonetheless, any modern analysis of an order for sale should be conducted by reference to TOLATA 1996 rather than the pre-1996 trust for sale principles.
