Bristol & West Building Society v Henning [1985]

Facts

  • Mr Henning and his mistress lived in a house, unmarried, and had children
  • Mr Henning was the sole legal owner, having paid £1,900 deposit and paid the rest via a £11,000 secured mortgage loan
  • Mr Henning moved out and stopped paying the mortgage

Issue

  • Could the bank obtain possession from the mistress?

Decision

  • Yes

Reasoning

  • The mistress had no beneficial interest in the house
  • She knew and consented to the mortgaged
  • Obiter – it is enough that a contributor knows or ought to know that a mortgage was used to help acquire land for there to be imputed consent to that mortgage and therefore for it to take priority of the interest of that contributor
RELATED CASE  Prudential Assurance v London Residuary Body [1992]

Posted in Land Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 28th April 2015

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms