An aristocrat has lost a High Court battle to prevent trustees of his ex-wife’s £1.2 million income fund from selling a cottage on his family’s 11th century rural estate in Somerset.
Sir Benjamin Slade, 7th Baronet of Maunsell (pictured), was married to previous wife Lady Pauline Slade for 12 years before the couple divorced in 1994. As part of the divorce, Lady Slade was given a £1.2 million trust fund made up of an “income fund” now worth around £651,000 and the £585,000 house in rural Somerset.
After moving out of the property in 2023, Lady Slade asked trustees to sell it, explaining in a letter: “I have wanted to sell Lower Rydon for years. I have no intention of living at The Old Farm again and no wish to buy a further property.
“I give my full consent to the trustees to sell the house, land and outbuildings and for the money to be invested, to enhance my income, and all debts to be paid from the proceeds.”
Lady Slade’s wish to sell prompted a complex legal dispute over her rights, with Sir Benjamin arguing his ex-wife had no right to any money from the house as it was only ever transferred to provide her with a home.
He claimed that The Old Farm was never intended to be an “income producing asset” as her income was meant to flow from a dedicated cash fund, now worth around £651,000.
The property was intended only to provide “lifetime rent-free accommodation”, he said, insisting that if Lady Slade rejected the option of a replacement property she would have no right to benefit from the sale of The Old Farm.
Trustees for Lady Slade’s divorce fund asked the High Court to decide whether she had the right to ask them to sell the house and invest the profits for her benefit. Master Julia Clark has now ruled against Sir Benjamin, having found that one of the main purposes of the divorce trust was to provide her with income “during her lifetime”.
“There is in my judgment no basis for concluding that if Lady Slade does not direct the purchase of a replacement property that the overall purpose of the trust comes to an end, or that Lady Slade’s interest in the net proceeds of sale ends and reverts to Sir Benjamin,” the judge said.
The baronet’s barrister, Robert Deacon, told the court that Lady Slade moved out in 2022 or 2023, later penning a letter in August 2024 “confirming that she had no intention of living in the property again”.
But ruling against him, the judge concluded: “I do not accept the submissions. [The purpose of the trust] is to provide Lady Slade with income during her lifetime from the ‘trust fund’, and the trust fund includes the property.
“In my judgment, these provisions render the submission that the trust’s purpose did not include providing income from the property to Lady Slade unsustainable.”
The judge concluded that the terms of the trust “provides for the income from the entirety of the trust fund, including the property, to be held for Lady Slade.”
Master Clark ruled that Lady Slade or the trustees can direct the sale of the Old Farm, with the profits either used to buy her a replacement property, or invested and the income paid out to her.
Denise Findlay, partner in the family team at Birketts LLP, said the decision underscores how cases rely on the exact wording of the original trust and divorce settlement.
She explained: “While a lifetime right to occupy a property is quite different from outright ownership, the High Court found that the trust in question was intended to offer Lady Slade meaningful financial support throughout her lifetime, rather than simply providing a place to live. The court determined that Lady Slade is entitled to direct the sale of the property and that she can invest the proceeds to generate an income, which is a significant clarification.
“It’s a timely reminder that the distinction between a right of occupation and a broader life interest can be quite nuanced. Beneficiaries’ rights are ultimately shaped by the way the trust is drafted and interpreted, rather than by what the parties may have assumed at the time.
“This case really highlights that what parties believe they agreed during a divorce may not align with how the court interprets those intentions decades down the line – making clarity in drafting absolutely essential.”
Image courtesy of Champion News
