[2008] EWHC 1505 (Ch) 4 July 2008. Despite a trustee in bankruptcy of a beneficiary having no right of occupation under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 and being unable to claim compensation under this act for exclusion of the right to occupy, there was no reason why compensation should be denied for the continued occupation of the whole land by the other benificiary. Appellant (F), trustee in bankruptcy of respondent (P) under a trust of land appealled against a decision after it was refused compensation for the continued occupation of a property by B, P's wife. After a bankruptcy order against P, F and another were appointed trustees and 12 years later applied to the courts for an order to sell P's matrimonial home. A dispute arose over whether F should be allowed to set-off against a claim by B, (compensation as a result of mortgage payments etc.), against a charge for the fact that B had been in continuous occupation of the whole of the property since the order to sell. Held: appeal allowed. Although F as a trustee had no rights of occupation, it was reasonable for F to expect an occupation rent from B as the sole occupant of the whole property (including the half that constituted F's interest).