Bedson v Bedson [1965] 2 QB 666
Court: Court of Appeal
Facts : In Bedson v Bedson, the husband and wife were joint tenants of a property that consisted of a draper’s shop on the ground floor with a living space above it. The husband (D) solely owned and operated the draper’s shop, where he employed his wife (C) and paid her a weekly wage. The couple lived together in the flat above the shop with their three children. Following a breakdown in their relationship, the wife left the home with the children. She then applied to the court under section 17 of the Married Women's Property Act 1882 for an order for the sale of the property, seeking a division of proceeds based on their equitable interests. The key issues before the court were whether it was possible to sever the joint tenancy of the matrimonial home and whether an order for sale should be granted, thereby distributing the proceeds between the parties according to their interests.
Issue: Could the joint tenancy in the matrimonial home be severed, and should the court grant an order for sale, thus dividing the proceeds between the husband and wife based on their respective equitable interests?
Held: The Court of Appeal refused to grant the order for sale, as it would have deprived the husband of both his business and income. Nevertheless, the court recognized that the joint tenancy had been severed, resulting in the establishment of a beneficial tenancy in common. Upon severance, each party was entitled to a half-share of the property. In acknowledgment of the wife’s interest in the property, the husband agreed to pay her a weekly sum.
Key Judicial Statements: Lord Denning MR observed that granting an order for sale would undermine the purposes of the trust, which included both the provision of a matrimonial home and the continuation of the husband’s business. Allowing a sale, he noted, would destroy the family home and eliminate any possibility of the family reuniting. Lord Russell LJ dissented, stating, “There is no rule in law or equity that the wife cannot sell her beneficial interest or sever a joint tenancy; the court has no jurisdiction to restrain a wife from disposing of her own property.” He argued that the wife was entitled to dispose of her interest in the property as she saw fit.
💡 Leveluplaw: emphasizes the importance of balancing practical considerations when determining property rights, particularly in cases where the matrimonial home is intertwined with a business. The court’s reluctance to order the sale of the property underscores the priority given to protecting the husband’s business and income, even while recognizing the wife’s equitable share. It also highlights differing judicial perspectives on property rights within marriage, with Lord Russell LJ advocating for the autonomy of individual property rights in joint tenancies.