Rodway v Landy
Rodway v Landy
- 2001
- Estates Gazette Law Reports 44 EG 151-157(7) .
CA 4 April 2001. In 1994 the claimant (R) and defendant (L) were medical practitioners who acquired a property for use as a surgery in which they set up a medical practice as partners. The partnership was terminated in 1998. R commenced proceedings claiming that the property was a partnership asset and seeking its sale. L denied the property was jointly owned and counterclaimed seeking an order pursuant to the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 s14 for the partitioning of the property. At an earlier hearing it was held that the property was partnership property. Both R and L agreed that they held the property as beneficial tenants in common and equal shares. R appealed the decision of a trial judge that the occupation of the property should be divided between both parties. R argued that s13 of the 1996 Act meant one co-owner could not be excluded from a part of trust property. L cross-appealed in relation to the award of reduced costs made to him. "Held", the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.
TRUST
MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS
REAL PROPERTY
OCCUPATION RIGHTS
EXCLUSION
COSTS ORDERS
TRUSTS OF LAND AND APPOINTMENT OF TRUSTEES ACT 1996 S14
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE ACT 1977
TERMINATION OF PARTNERSHIP
BENEFICIAL TENANTS IN COMMON
CA 4 April 2001. In 1994 the claimant (R) and defendant (L) were medical practitioners who acquired a property for use as a surgery in which they set up a medical practice as partners. The partnership was terminated in 1998. R commenced proceedings claiming that the property was a partnership asset and seeking its sale. L denied the property was jointly owned and counterclaimed seeking an order pursuant to the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 s14 for the partitioning of the property. At an earlier hearing it was held that the property was partnership property. Both R and L agreed that they held the property as beneficial tenants in common and equal shares. R appealed the decision of a trial judge that the occupation of the property should be divided between both parties. R argued that s13 of the 1996 Act meant one co-owner could not be excluded from a part of trust property. L cross-appealed in relation to the award of reduced costs made to him. "Held", the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.
TRUST
MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS
REAL PROPERTY
OCCUPATION RIGHTS
EXCLUSION
COSTS ORDERS
TRUSTS OF LAND AND APPOINTMENT OF TRUSTEES ACT 1996 S14
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE ACT 1977
TERMINATION OF PARTNERSHIP
BENEFICIAL TENANTS IN COMMON