Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T18:58:12.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Overreaching after Boland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

M. P. Thompson
M. P. Thompson*
Affiliation:
University of Leicester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In William & Glyn's Bank v Boland Mr Boland, the sole resgistered proprietor of a house, mortgaged it to a bank. On his inability to meet the repayments, the bank sought possession as a prelude to the exercise of its power of sale. The action of possession failed because Mrs Boland successfully claimed an overriding interest in the property. This claim was founded on her having substantially contributed to the purchase of the house, thereby obtaining an interest in it. This interest was enforceable against the bank because she was in actual occupation of the land at the time it acquired its interest with the result that, because of section 70(1)(g) of the Land Registration Act 1925, she had an overriding interest in the land.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , July 1986 , pp. 140 - 153
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. [1981] AC 487. The case concerned two couples but, for simplicity, only one couple will be referred to.

2. Caunce v Caunce [1964] I WLR 286. See Thompson, M.P. [1984] Conv 362 at pp 366–370.Google Scholar

3. After Hodgson v Marks [1971] Ch 892 this could only have been true in so far as spouses were concerned.

4. [1981] AC at 508. See also at 510 per Lord Scarman.

5. See especially [1981] AC at 509–510 per Lord Scarman.

6. (1982) Law Corn No 115.

7. (1978) Law Corn No 86.

8. This criticism applies mutatis mutandis in the case of unregistered land.

9. See Merricks, Walter (1985) 135 NLJ 278.Google Scholar

10. Re Boyle's Claim 1961 1 WLR 339; London and Cheshire Insurance Co Ltd v Laplagrene [1971] Ch 499. But see the unsatisfactory decision in Paddington Building Society v Mendelsohn (1985) 50 P & CR 244 discussed by M.P. Thompson [1986] Conv 57.

11. For an example of this but where, on the facts, no tears need be shed for the purchaser, see Chhokar v Chhokar [1984] FLR 313. But see Bristol and West Building Society v Henning [1985] 2 All ER 606, infra..

12. Cedar Holdings Ltd v Green [1981] Ch 129.

13. First National Securities Ltd v Hegarty [1984] 1 All ER 641. For a valuable discussion of the problems of forgery in registered land, see Smith, R.J. (1985) 101 LQR 79.Google Scholar

14. Barnsley, Conveyancing Law nnd Practice (2nd edn), p 59; Emmet on Title (18th edn), pp 208–209; H. Forrest (1978) 42 Conv (NS) 194 at pp 199–201; M.D.A. Freeman (1981) 11 Fam Law 37 at p 40; Stephen Freeman (1980) 43 MLR 692 at p 695; Hayton, Registered Land (3rd edn), p 100; Jill Martin [1980] Conv 361; W.T. Murphy (1979) 42 MLR 467. Cf A.M. Prichard [1980] Conv 458. For judicial assumptions to this effect, see Williams & Glyn's Bank v Boland [1979] Ch 312 at 330 per Lord Dinning MR, at 339 per Ormrod LJ.

15. [1986] 2 WLR 616.

16. [1981] AC 487 at 512.

17. [1979] Ch 312 at 337.

18. See the interesting discussion between Colin Sydenham [1980] Conv 427 and Jill Martin [1981] Conv 219.

19. Martin loc cit n 18 supra, pp 222–223.

20. Law of Property Act 1925, section 36(1).

21. Megarry and Wade, The Law of Real Property (5th edn), pp 436–438. For a different view, see Mark Friend and John Newton [1982] Conv 213.

22. [1955] 1 234.

23. Rudden, Bernard (1963) 27 Conv (NS) 51.Google Scholar

24. See also Re Warren [1932] 1 Ch 42 at 47 per J, Maugham and Cook v Cook [1962] p 235.Google Scholar

25. Hamish Gray (1955) 18 408 at pp 409–410; Latham, Valentine (1955) 18 MLR 303 at p 305 Google Scholar. See also Crane, F.R. (1955) 19 Conv (NS) 146 at p 148 Google Scholar where the inconsistency between Bull and Re Landi [1939] Ch 828 is referred to.

26. See Annand, Ruth E. (1982) 132 NLJ 526.Google Scholar

27. Forrest, G.A. (1956) 19 MLR 312; Re Bagot's Settlement [1894] 1 Ch 177.Google Scholar

28. See Taylor v Taylor [1968] 1 WLR 378. It would therefore seem clear that the fact of possession confers additional rights on the tenant in common. Cf Latham op cit n 25 supra, p 305.

29. [1970] 2 QB 677.

30. Prichard, M.J. (1971) 44 CLJ 44 at p 46.Google Scholar

31. M.J. Prichard (1971) 44 CLJ 44 at p46.

32. For a penetrating historical account of this doctrine, which concludes that it has been overstressed, see Anderson, Stuart (1984) 100 LQR 86.Google Scholar

33. Hayton, D.J. (1969) 33 Conv (NS) 254.Google Scholar

34. William & Glyn's Bank v Boland [1981] AC 487 at 510–511 per Lord Scarman.

35. Eg Re Evers Trust [1980] 3 All ER 399; Dennis v McDonald [1982] 1 All ER 691. For reviews of this line of authority, see Schuz, Rhona (1982) 12 Fam Law 108 Google Scholar; M. P. Thompson [1984] Conv 103.

36. [1984] FLR 313. See also Kingsnorth Twt Ltd u Bell [1986] 1 All ER 419.

37. A good example would be the bankruptcy of the co-owners. See Catherine Hand [1983] Conv 219.

38. Wallerv Wnller [1967] 1 WLR 451.

39. [1981] AC 487 at 507 per Lord Wilberforce

40. [1955] 1 QB 234 at 239. See also Bedron u Bcdron [I9651 2 QB 666 at 678 pcr Lord Denning.

41. For strong criticism of this, see Wade, H.W.R. (1955) 14 CLJ 155.Google Scholar

42. A provision inserted into the 1925 Act by the Law of Property (Amendment) Act 1926. For judicial discussion, see Re Jones [1931] 1 Ch 375.

43. The important qualification at the end of this sub-section for the protection of purchasers will be discussed below.

44. See n 14 supra..

45. Coventry Permanent Building Society v Jows [ 19511 1 All ER 901 at 904pcr Harman J.

46. Friend and Newton loc cit n 21 supra, pp 216–217.

47. For criticism, see Wade, H.W.R. [1956] CLJ 216 at p 228; Stephen Moriarty (1984) 100 LQR 376 at p 407; M.P. Thompson [I9851 CLJ 280 at p298Google Scholar.

48. Cf Latham op cit n 25 supra, p 305. See n 28, supra..

49. This example applies of course to occupants other than spouses.

50. See Curling u Law Society [1985] All ER 705.

51. Section 14 uses actual occupation as an alternative to actual possession, whereas section 26(3) refers only to possession. The former concept is the narrower of the two and, therefore, section 14 should prevail over section 26(3). Cf Strand Securities Ltd v Caswell [1965] Ch 95B.

52. Wolstenholme, and Cherry, , Conveyancing Statutes (13th edn), vol 1, p 69.Google Scholar

53. [1979] Ch 312 at 320.

54. [1981] AC 487 at 501.

55. [1979] Ch 312 at 341. Italics supplied. Cf at 330 per Lord Denning MR.

56. [1955] 1 QB 234 at 238.

57. [1986] 2 WLR 616. For hostile reactions, see Hayton, David (1986) 136 NLJ 208; Phillip H. Kenny (1986) 83 LS Gaz 684.Google Scholar

58. The transcript reveals that the Maxwell-Browns were made bankrupt in 1982. It does not seem, however, the trustee in bankruptcy petitioned the court for a sale under the Law of Property Act 1925, s30. This is mysterious, as such petitions are almost invariably successful: see Catherine Hand [1983] Conv 216. See now Insolvency Act 1985, s 171.

59. National Provincial Bank v Hastings Car Mart (No 2) [1964] Ch 665 at 696 per Russell LJ; National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth [1965] AC 1175 at 1237 per Lord Upjohn, at 1261 per Lord Wilberforce.

60. The writer is indebted to Dr Judith Masson for this suggestion.

61. [1985] 2 All ER 606. For a full discussion, see Thompson, M.P. (1986) 49 MLR 245.Google Scholar

62. [1964] I WLR 286.

63. [1971] AC 886.

64. [I9851 50 P & CR 244.

65. [1981] AC 487 at 508–509.

66. See the discussion by D.J. Hayton in Lord Denning: The Judge and The Law (eds) Jowell and Mc Auslan) p 79, pp 83–88; M.D.A. Freeman, ibid, p 109, pp 139–146.

67. [1984] Ch 317. See too Winkworth v Edward Baron Development Co Ltd (1985) Times, 23 December.

68. See Kingsnorth Trust Ltd u Bell [1986] 1 All ER 419.

69. The writer is grateful to Professor D.G. Barnsley for his helpful comments on this article. Responsibility for the views expressed, of course, rests solely with the writer.