Rodway v Landy [2001] EWCA Civ 471
Restricting a right to occupy under TOLATA via a Court order.
Facts
Two doctors jointly purchased a property for the purposes of running a medical practice from it. The doctors contributed to the purchase price equally and thus were viewed to be joint tenants in law and tenants in common in equity. Following a disagreement, the claimant wished to sell the property, however the defendant did not and instead suggested the division of the property so that each may run their own practice. Initially, the Landy attempted to assert s.7 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, s.7, to force the sale, however Rodway refused to give consent as a beneficiary. Subsequently Landy attempted to apply to the Court to forcibly partition the property asserting s.13(7) which allows for property rights to be exercised in the absence of the permission of beneficiaries in actual occupation, excluding or restricting this occupation, so long as there is judicial approval.
Issues
Whether Landy could reasonably use s.13(7) of TOLATA to request a court order to divide the property in spite of Rodway’s protests as a beneficiary.
Decision/Outcome
At first instance, the Court found for Landy, a decision which was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal. Here, the Court viewed that the property was physically suited to partitioning and thus it would not be an unreasonable or impractical matter for each doctor to establish their own practice. Moreover, Landy could reasonably require Rodway to contribute to the costs of such physical alterations.
Updated 21 March 2026
This article remains broadly accurate as a summary of Rodway v Landy [2001] EWCA Civ 471. The case is correctly cited and the core legal principles described — concerning the court’s power under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA) to restrict or exclude a beneficiary’s right to occupy, and the relevance of sections 7 and 13 of that Act — remain good law. TOLATA 1996 has not been materially amended in ways that would affect the points discussed. Readers should note, however, that the article contains a minor legal inaccuracy in its description of the procedural history: it is Rodway (not Landy) who sought the sale, and the sections of TOLATA are not entirely accurately attributed to each party’s argument — s.13(7) specifically empowers trustees to impose conditions when exercising powers under s.13, subject to court oversight, and the relevant application to court was made under s.14 of TOLATA. Readers should therefore treat the procedural narrative with some caution and consult the full judgment for precision. No subsequent case law or statutory change has altered the significance or authority of this decision.
