The case that gave minority beneficiaries a voice: Savage v Savage

When family trust disputes emerge, especially where livelihoods and businesses are at play, the right team makes all the difference. In Savage v Savage [2024] EWCA Civ 49, Cripps, led by Simon Donald with barristers William Moffett and Amber Turner of Radcliffe Chambers, secured a vital win. Courts confirmed minority beneficiaries’ voices matter under TOLATA, and in doing so, protected a grassroots family business. At Cripps, we believe law should serve real life, not just process.

The challenge

A family farmland dispute placed a small business at risk. Raymond Savage, the majority beneficiary, pressed for a swift sale of the land as part of a settlement in divorce and financial remedy proceedings with his wife; his nephew, Frank, a minority beneficiary, relied on the land to sustain his business. Initially, the first instance family court judge found in Frank’s favour and granted him a pre-emptive right to purchase the land from his uncle.  The first instance decision was then overturned by a Circuit Judge on appeal, who ruled that under section 15(3) of TOLATA, only majority interests matter, shutting out Frank’s position and forcing him to sell the land with his uncle.  With livelihoods hanging in the balance, Cripps needed to protect not just an asset, but a family venture.

Our approach

Led by Simon Donald, we worked with Ken Collins of 29 Bedford Row (in the initial family court proceedings and firs appeal) and then William Moffett and Amber Turner of Radcliffe Chambers (on appeal to the Court of Appeal) to challenge the assumption that section 15(3) of TOLATA excluded minority circumstances. Drawing on statutory language, legislative purpose and Law Commission insights, the team highlighted the breadth of judicial discretion under section 14, even in beneficiary disputes. Their advocacy and written legal argument stressed that minority interests should be weighed alongside majority interests, particularly where a business interests and personal interests were at stake.

The outcome

The Court of Appeal agreed. It restored the first-instance decision, granting Frank a pre-emption right, allowing him to purchase the land before any open-market sale. The judgment made two key points: (1) section 15(3) is non-exhaustive; (2) courts retain discretion to consider minority interests, preventing absurd situations such as dismissing both parties in a 50/50 ownership. Cripps and counsel’s strategy helped protect both the business and a fair outcome.

How we made a difference

In Savage v Savage, expert collaboration between Cripps and skilled counsel turned the tide for a minority beneficiary. We defended more than property rights; we upheld family enterprise and future security. This case sets a milestone for TOLATA disputes, reinforcing that courts must look beyond majority control. For our clients, that means meaningful protection, even when they’re outnumbered.