Williams (JW) v Williams (MA) [1976] Ch 278, CA
The effect of the purpose of a trust in providing a family home on an attempted claim for a sales order under the 1925 LPA.
Facts
A husband and wife jointly owned a piece of property that acted as their family home, where they lived alongside their four children. The husband subsequently deserted his family, who remained occupant in the house. He later wished to sell the house so as to be able to reclaim his contribution to the purchase price. The wife objected to this, asserting that she held a beneficial interest in the property and that the purpose of the trust over the house was for the provision of a family home. and so the husband applied to the Courts for an order of sale under the Law of Property Act 1925, s. 30.
Issues
Was the purpose of the trust regarding the property that of being a matrimonial home (which would thus be deemed ended given the breakdown of the marriage) or that of being a family home (which would allow the wife to assert her family’s beneficial interest in the property).
Decision/Outcome
The Court of Appeal found for the wife, rejecting the husband’s argument that an order of sale could be issued as the purpose of the trust – the provision of a matrimonial home – was ended, as per the reasoning in Jones v Challenger [1961] 1 QB 176. Rather, the purpose of the trust was identifiable as the provision of a family home, a purpose which was ongoing. Subsequently, the issuing of a sales order would serve to undermine the purpose of the trust and encourage an inequitable breach of trust.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary remains historically accurate. Williams v Williams [1976] Ch 278 is correctly described, and the reference to Jones v Challenger [1961] 1 QB 176 is accurate in context.
However, readers should be aware of an important statutory change: section 30 of the Law of Property Act 1925, under which the husband’s application was made, has been repealed and replaced. The Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA) now governs applications for sale of co-owned land. Under TOLATA, section 14 provides the mechanism for applying to court for an order relating to land held on trust, and section 15 sets out the factors the court must consider, which include the purposes for which the property is held and the interests of any minor beneficiaries — broadly reflecting the kind of purposive reasoning applied in this case. Williams v Williams therefore retains value as an illustration of how courts approached the purpose of a trust in this context, and its reasoning remains relevant to how courts apply TOLATA today, but it should not be cited as authority for the procedural mechanism (s.30 LPA 1925), which no longer exists.
