Jones v Challenger [1961] 1 QB 176
The effect of extinction of the purpose of a trust to provide a matrimonial home on a joint tenant’s right to seek an order of sale.
Facts
A married couple held joint legal and equitable title to a piece of property which had served as their matrimonial home. Upon the disintegration of the relationship, the wife wanted to sell their matrimonial home. The husband attempted to assert his right as a beneficiary of the joint trust on which they held the property to prevent the sale. Subsequently the wife sought an order of sale from the Court to enable her to sell the property without her husband’s consent as a beneficiary of the property and trust.
Issues
Whether the couple’s divorce extinguished the joint trust of the property (given its purpose as the matrimonial home) and thus negating the husband’s right to prevent sale on the grounds of equity.
Decision/Outcome
The Court found for the wife, deeming that an order of sale could be reasonably issued despite the husband’s protest as the purpose of the joint trust regarding the property had been to provide a matrimonial home and as the trustees had divorced, this purpose was no longer existent. With the extinction of the trust’s purpose, there was a presumption that a sale could be order as per a trust for sale. Had the couple still been married, the husband’s beneficial interest in the property would have been considered differently as the trust’s purpose would be ongoing.
Updated 21 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Jones v Challenger [1961] 1 QB 176. The case remains good law as an illustration of how courts approached the purpose of a trust for sale under the pre-1996 legal framework.
However, readers should be aware of a significant change in the law: the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA 1996) abolished the doctrine of a trust for sale and replaced it with a trust of land. Applications for orders of sale are now governed by section 14 of TOLATA 1996, and the matters a court must consider when exercising its discretion are set out in section 15. These include the intentions of the persons who created the trust, the purposes for which the property is held, the welfare of any minor occupying the property, and the interests of secured creditors. The principle in Jones v Challenger — that the extinction of the purpose for which property is held is relevant to whether a sale should be ordered — remains influential and is now reflected in the section 15 framework, but the statutory context is materially different from that discussed in the article. Students should read this case alongside TOLATA 1996 and subsequent cases decided under that Act.
