National Provincial Bank v Hastings Car Mart [1964]

Facts

  • The defendant transferred his house (legitimately) to his own company
  • The house was used to secure the defendant’s overdraft
  • National Provincial Bank registered a charge against the house to secure the overdraft
  • The defendant had left the house, deserting his wife and children prior to the granting of the charge

Issue

  • Could the bank enforce its security and claim possession of the house over the defendant’s wife?

Decision

  • Not immediately

Reasoning

  • Courtesy of the wife’s actual occupation, the court had the discretion to require the wife to pay the bank £3 per week for 12 months, while delaying the bank’s buy alprazolam in usa right to possession
  • The Court of Appeal mentioned that it would not be appropriate to require the registration of some interests, therefore what is now Schedule 3, paragraph 2 of the Land Registration Act 2002 has its existence justified (then Section 70(1)(g) of the Land Registration Act 1925)
  • Lord Denning in the Court of Appeal considered that licences could bind successors if combined with actual occupation, contrary to the orthodox view in King v David Allen [1916]. However, the House of Lords did not consider this point.
RELATED CASE  Re Citro [1991]

Posted in Land Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 24th April 2015

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy