What factors will be relevant in resolving this dispute and how will they be applied by the court in this case

Case Analysis Case Analysis The “ TLATA” (Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act), an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom was introduced in 1996. The Act intends to define land ownership rights and settlement of land and property disputes. The given case of Agatha and Kev falls within the settlement sections of TLATA. A close analysis of the case on the grounds of TLATA points to the fact that the law would favour Agatha.
Evidently, the rambling mansion belongs equally to both Agatha and Kev. As per the trust of the land or TLATA, the ownership of it goes to both, and therefore, the co-partner can never take any decision without the consent of the partner. Of course, Kev does hold ownership of the mansion and can enjoy the profit from it if any. However, he is not entitled to sell it or insist Agatha to vacate the mansion. Also, section 12 of the Act states that “ beneficiary is entitled to an interest in possession in land subject to a trust of land is entitled by reason of his interest to occupy the land” 1. Section 14of the Trust of Land and Appointment Trustees Act 1996 specifies court’s power in preventing the disposal of property. The law further denotes that selling the property should be “ free of any equitable rights” which does not apply in this case.
Similar to this case, a recent judgment on a case study of Jones v Kernott (2011) UKSC 53 reveals the fact that the person’s interest on the property should be recognized and fulfilled as he has 50: 50 share or ownership on land or property2. Hence, in this case Agatha has to make only certain amount of compensations if Kev does not experience any benefit from the property. No law of the country would ever prevent her from staying at the mansion for the rest of her life. A jury would always observe a person’s state of mind, intension, and whether it hurts any of the partners in some ways or other. In this case, Agatha’s desire to remain in rambling mansion has to be accepted, because she as the co-owner and an aged woman deserves caring consideration for every cause.
The question of who would be justified never occurs in this respect, for Agatha always has the right to stay at her property though she may not be the mighty one among the partners.
On the flip side, when one considers the demand of Kev, his claim does not point to any loss he experiences because of Agatha’s stay. Since he does not have a clear reason to support the immediate sale of the mansion, his argument would not sustain in the court of law. TLATA always intends to ensure peace and harmony. Agatha may have to make certain level of compensation if Kev proves that he does not get any benefits from the mansion. But such claims of Kev should have valid proofs and witnesses. Moreover, the court has its legal procedure to have trial during which it will analyze essential documents in order to give the best judgment. Altogether, it would substantiate Agatha as she possesses the complete documents and rights of ownership.
Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53 Collas. Crill. Trust of Land and Overreaching. Best Practice Offshore Law.
‘ Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996’. Section 12. (Legislation. gov. uk) < http://www. legislation. gov. uk/ukpga/1996/47/section/12> accessed 15 Jan 2014.