Rittson-Thomas and Others v Oxfordshire County Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] UKSC 13 |
| Year | 2021 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
2021 Feb 18; April 23
Trusts - Resulting trust - School site - Grantor conveying land for use as site for school - School subsequently relocating to new site - Land lying vacant between relocation of school and sale - Whether original site being used “as a site for a school … or otherwise for the purposes of education” between relocation of school and sale - Whether grantor’s successors in title entitled to receive proceeds of sale -
By conveyances made in 1914 and 1928 the grantor conveyed land to the defendant local authority pursuant to section 2 of the School Sites Act 1841F1 as a site for a public elementary school. In 2006 the defendant moved the school to a new site adjacent to the original premises, which lay vacant for some 18 months before the defendant sold the land, pursuant to its power under section 14 of the 1841 Act, so that the proceeds of sale could be applied towards the cost of building the new school. The claimants, as the grantor’s successors in title, brought a claim seeking a declaration that they were entitled to the proceeds of sale, contending that prior to the sale the land had ceased to be used “as a site for a school … or otherwise for the purposes of education” within section 2 of the 1841 Act, thereby triggering a reverter under the proviso to that section with the consequence that the proceeds of sale were held by the defendant on resulting trust for the claimants, in accordance with section 1 of the Reverter of Sites Act 1987F2. The judge dismissed the claim, holding that while it lay vacant the land had continued to be used as a site for a school or otherwise for the purposes of education, within the meaning of section 2, because it had remained the defendant’s intention that the proceeds of sale should be used to meet part of the costs of building the new school. The Court of Appeal allowed the claimants’ appeal, holding that the relocation of the school had triggered a reverter under the proviso to section 2 and that the claimants were entitled to the proceeds of sale of the land.
On the defendant’s appeal—
Held, allowing the appeal, that, since the School Sites Act 1841 was concerned with charitable purposes, both sections 2 and 14 of that Act should be interpreted by applying a broad and practical approach; that the court should seek to give effect to Parliament’s purpose and to interpret the provisions as forming part of a coherent legislative scheme; that, moreover, the court should lean in favour of the charitable trust continuing rather than being ended by a section 2 reverter, thereby reflecting the balance struck in the Act between the interests of the public and the grantor; that there was nothing in section 14 that expressly or impliedly excluded the power to sell where the school site was being sold with vacant possession and, if there were such an exclusion, one might have expected it to have been spelt out in clear terms, given that the usual sale of land was with vacant possession; that, further, to interpret the Act as meaning that there was a section 2 reverter in such circumstances would encourage devices that might have potentially unfortunate effects, whether educationally or financially; that, applying the correct interpretation of sections 2 and 14, the site of a school did not cease to be used for the purposes of the 1841 Act where, at all material times, it was considered advisable to sell the site and to apply the money arising from the sale in the purchase of another site, or in the improvement of other premises, used or to be used for the school, and the power in section 14 included a power to sell with vacant possession; and that, accordingly, since there had been an intention throughout by the defendant to use the proceeds of sale of the land to pay off the costs of the new school site, section 14 permitted the land to be sold with vacant possession and the proceeds to be used for that purpose (post, paras 8, 31–35, 37–39, 47–51).
Per curiam. The court’s interpretation of the 1841 Act does not contradict the need for a section 2 reverter to be triggered by an event, that is certain, rather than a process. The permanent closing down of a school is a conceptually certain event even if evidentially there may be some difficulty in pin-pointing when that occurred, because it may have rested on a party’s intentions (post, paras 32, 50).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of Lady Arden and Lord Burrows JJSC:
Attorney General v Price [
Attorney General v Shadwell [
Attorney General’s Reference (No 5 of 2002)
Cawston’s Conveyance and the School Sites Act 1841, In re [
Chavasse, In re (unreported) 14 April 1954, Harman J
Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (UK) v Attorney General
Dennis v Malcolm [
Fraser v Canterbury Diocesan Board of Finance [
Fraser v Canterbury Diocesan Board of Finance (No 2)
Fraser v Canterbury Diocesan Board of Finance (No 3)
Gape, decd, In re [
Inland Revenue Comrs v McGuckian [
R (Andrews) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health
TW Logistics Ltd v Essex County Council
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Carter v Bradbeer [
Edwards & Walkden (Norfolk) Ltd v Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London
APPEAL from the Court of Appeal
By a Part 8 claim form the claimants, Michael Rittson-Thomas, Hugo Rittson-Thomas, Rupert Rittson-Thomas and Kim Hughes, as heirs of the grantor, Robert Fleming, sought inter alia a declaration that the defendant, Oxfordshire County Council, held on a resulting trust for the claimants 93.17% of the proceeds of sale, amounting to £1,243,819.50, of land which had originally been conveyed by the grantor to the defendant in September 1914 and April 1928 under section 2 of the School Sites Act 1841 for specific use as part of Nettlebed School, Henley-on-Thames and had been sold to Bluespace Property Nineteen Ltd on 28 September 2007 pursuant to section 14 of the 1841 Act. The claimants maintained that (i) title to the land had reverted to them under section 2 as the grantor’s successors in title when the defendant had relocated the school to an adjacent site in February 2006 and it had ceased to be used for the purpose for which it had been conveyed, namely “as a site for a school” within the meaning of section 2, and (ii) the defendant held the sale proceeds for the claimants on a resulting trust pursuant to section 1 of the Reverter of Sites Act 1987. By an order dated 9 March 2018 Richard Spearman QC sitting as a deputy judge of the Chancery Division [2018] EWHC 455 (Ch); [2019] WTLR 1285 dismissed the claim. On 21 February 2019 the Court of Appeal (Patten, Hamblen and Nicola Davies LJJ) [2019] EWCA Civ 200; [
Pursuant to permission granted by the Supreme Court (Baroness Hale of Richmond PSC, Lady Black and Lord Briggs JJSC) on 3 December 2019 the defendant appealed. The issues for the Supreme Court, as set out in the parties’ statement of facts and issues, were: (1) whether, upon a true construction of section 2 of the 1841 Act and all other relevant provisions, a reverter had occurred in February 2006 when the school ceased to operate from the old site such that the net proceeds of sale were held in part for the heirs of Robert Fleming; or (2) whether no reverter had occurred in circumstances where the defendant had conceived and implemented a composite scheme plan or transaction pursuant to which the school was to be relocated to new premises, and the funding of a new school on an alternative parcel of land adjoining the old site was to be provided (in part) by using the entire net proceeds of sale of some or all of the land comprised in the old site.
The facts are stated in the judgment of Lady Arden and Lord Burrows JJSC, post, paras 4, 10–17.
Christopher McCall QC and Nigel Thomas (instructed by
The power of sale in section 14 of the School Sites Act 1841 is exercisable as soon as it is deemed advisable to move a school to a more suitable site, but it does not cease to be exercisable when the new site comes into use; it is a power to sell either before or after the new school is in use as such. The possibility of using the proceeds of sale in the improvement of other premises used for the purposes of the trust makes clear that reverter occurs only when the old site has become surplus to the requirements of the trust. Section 6(2) of the Reverter of Sites Act 1987 clarified the working of section 14, confirming that there is no power to sell once the land has reverted but that a sale under section 14 puts an end...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kostal UK Ltd v Dunkley and Others
...and purpose (see, for example, Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5; [2021] ICR 657, para 70; Rittson-Thomas v Oxfordshire County Council [2021] UKSC 13; [2021] 2 WLR 993, para 33). In carrying out their interpretative role, the courts can look not only at the statute but also, for example, at the......
-
Martin Jospeh Rakusen v Mikkel Jepsen
...in the light of their context and the purpose of the provision: Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5; [2021] ICR 657, para 70; Rittson-Thomas v Oxfordshire County Council [2021] UKSC 13; [2022] AC 129, para 33; R (O) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] UKSC 3; [2022] 2 WLR 34......
-
The King (on the application of Wildfish Conservation) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
...the 2021 Act, including the target in s.3 and the Secretary of State's duty in s.5 (see e.g. Ritson-Thomas v Oxfordshire County Council [2022] AC 129 at [33] to 217 Accordingly, “reducing adverse impacts on the environment” in s.141A(3)(b) in relation to storm overflow discharges must inclu......
-
R v Andrew John Luckhurst
...provision are important: see to similar effect, for example, Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5; [2021] ICR 657, para 70; and Rittson-Thomas v Oxfordshire County Council [2021] UKSC 13; [2022] AC 129, para 33. Lord Hodge also made clear, at paras 30–32, that, in carrying out their interpreta......