Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
JUDGE PURLE:
This is an application to enforce a final charging order dated 10 th February 2005. The charging order was made in respect of the interest of the first defendant, Mr Taylor, in 15 Seagrave Road, Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire. That interest was charged with payment of the sum of £47,675.44 then owing under a judgment of 13 th January 2004, together with any interest becoming due, and £202, the costs of the application. The debt today is closer to £60,000.
The second defendant, Mrs Taylor, is married to Mr Taylor. 15 Seagrave Road is their family home. They are registered as joint proprietors. That raises the presumption that they acquired their home as beneficial joint tenants as well (see Stack v Dowden [2007] 2 AC 432 , in particular the speech of Lady Hale at paragraph 56). Mrs Taylor now claims to be solely beneficially entitled. I shall examine that claim later in this judgment.
These proceedings were issued, seeking possession and sale, on 28 th February 2006. They have taken some time to reach a conclusion. Mr Taylor was diagnosed with cancer in June 2006. A number of stays of the proceedings were agreed to thereafter, down to the end of January 2007, to accommodate Mr Taylor’s need for treatment. A final hearing first came on before me for hearing on 16 th November 2007. I granted an adjournment on that occasion which I had previously refused on paper. Amongst other things, the adjournment was granted to allow Mr Taylor to explore the possibility of unlocking the development value from other land owned by Mr Taylor at Carrington Road, High Wycombe. This land was said to have real development potential but was landlocked. Had the land been unlocked it would have provided another source from which to pay off the judgment debt. However, the adjournment I granted did not bear fruit and the Carrington Road land remains landlocked so far as any meaningful development is concerned. There is no evidence that this is likely to change in the foreseeable future.
Mr Taylor is a pensioner and no longer works. He has no significant assets apart from his interest in the matrimonial home out of which to satisfy the judgment. The land at Carrington Road is, as I have mentioned, landlocked and therefore has no significant value at present.
Mrs Taylor is also a pensioner. As well as claiming to be the sole beneficial owner of the family home, she says, if she is wrong about that, that the charging order should not be enforced as that will