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.
Updated 21 March 2026
This case note accurately describes the facts and decision in Re Buchanan-Wollaston’s Conveyance [1939] Ch 738. However, readers should be aware of an important change in the statutory framework since this case was decided.
The case was decided under the trust for sale regime that existed prior to the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA 1996). Under the old regime, courts exercised a discretion to order sale under what became s.30 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Since 1 January 1997, TOLATA 1996 has replaced that regime. Trusts for sale are now governed as trusts of land, and applications for sale are made under s.14 TOLATA 1996. Courts must have regard to the matters listed in s.15 when determining such applications, which include the purposes for which the trust property is held and the intentions of the person who created the trust.
The principle established in this case — that a court will not order sale where doing so would defeat the very purpose for which the land was jointly acquired — remains good law and is consistent with the s.15 TOLATA 1996 framework. The case continues to be cited as relevant authority for that principle. Students should nonetheless ensure they frame any discussion of the current law by reference to TOLATA 1996 rather than the pre-1997 trust for sale rules.
