National Provincial Bank v Hastings Car Mart 
- 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
- Could the bank enforce its security and claim possession of the house over the defendant’s wife?
- Not immediately
- 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 . However, the House of Lords did not consider this point.
Posted in Land Law Revision Notes.
This page was last updated on 24th April 2015