Landmark Cases in Land Law by Nigel Gravells

Author:Nigel Gravells
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Hart Publishing Ltd

* * *

1 Law Commission Report No 254, Land Registration for the Twenty-First Century: A Consultative Document (1998) para 4.17. It is frequently overlooked that this is intended as a minimum requirement for overriding interest status rather than a qualification for such.

2 G Curtis and T Ruoff, The Law and Practice of Registered Conveyancing (London, Stevens & Sons, 1958) 156.

3 Three decades earlier, see C Brickdale and J Stewart-Wallace, Land Registration Act 1925, 3rd edn (London, Stevens & Sons, 1927) 253.

4 An example of this type of claim (though it was based on a contract rather than unregistered transfer) is provided by Bridges v Mees [1957] Ch 474 (Ch D) (as an alternative to an adverse possession claim).

5 Well illustrated by Webb v Pollmount Ltd [1966] Ch 584 (Ch D) in which a tenant was able to assert an overriding interest to protect an option to purchase a freehold. Though the lease was an overriding interest as a short legal lease, this protects only covenants which, unlike that option, touch and concern the land: today, see Land Registration Act 2002 (hereafter LRA; unless otherwise indicated, references are to this Act) sch 3, para 1.

6 Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886 (HL); the recognition of its constituting a constructive trust (as opposed to a resulting trust) is much more recent.

7 Williams and Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland [1981] AC 487 (HL).

8 Caunce v Caunce [1969] 1 WLR 286 (Ch D).

9 Land Registry Annual Reports, 1958–59; 1980–81; 2011–12.

10 Fully recognised by the House of Lords in Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No 2) [2001] UKHL 44, [2002] 2 AC 773, [34].

11 It attracted a fair amount of attention in journals, examples being J Martin, ‘Section 70(1) (g) and the Vendor’s Spouse’ [1980] Conv 361; RJ Smith, ‘Overriding Interests, Wives and the House of Lords’ (1981) 97 LQR 12; S Freeman, ‘Wives, Conveyances and Justice’ (1980) 43 MLR 692 and MJ Prichard, ‘Registered Land—Overriding interests—Actual Occupation’ [1980] CLJ 243. It is fair to say that overreaching, both in Boland and City of London Building Society v Flegg [1988] AC 54 (HL) attracted the greatest attention.

12 Established by National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth [1965] AC 1175 (HL) and never subsequently challenged (despite an argument by L Tee, ‘The Rights of Every Person in Actual Occupation: An Enquiry into Section 70(1)(g) of the Land Registration Act 1925’ [1998] CLJ 328, that a broader view should be adopted).

13 These issues are further explored by Nicholas Hopkins in ch 9.

14 This appears to have been the primary basis on which Templeman J rejected the overriding interest argument at first instance: (1978) 36 P & CR 448 (Ch D). This goes far to explain the earlier failure of commentators to anticipate the modern scope of the actual occupation overriding interest.

15 Hunt v Luck [1902] 2 Ch 428 (CA) is frequently quoted as authority in this context; it restated the law in the light of the Conveyancing Act 1882 provisions regarding notice (now Law of Property Act 1925, s 199).

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.