Priority

Question 1

Wilkes v Spooner

Answer 1

At the moment of sale, the object of the rule to pay more than a nominal price for land is to make sure that value paid is equal to the value received from property. Doesn’t mean the actual value of the property must be paid.

Question 2

Hill v Tupper

Answer 2

No new property right could be created.

Question 3

National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth

Answer 3

Mrs Ainsworth did not have a property right, and it seemed from this judgement that LPA s4 capped possible equitable interests.

Question 4

Lloyds Bank v Rossett

Answer 4

Mrs R didn’t financially contribute to the purchase price of the house but supervised the renovation. It was decided that she had no interest in the house, would have needed to financially contribute or make an oral arrangement.

Question 5

Ives v High

Answer 5

Was estoppel where agreement for right of way was not formalised.

Question 6

Scott v Southern Pacific

Answer 6

Mrs Scott didn’t have estoppel interest, couldn’t create estoppel interest until registration. Argument of scintilla temporis between transfer and mortgage (split second between acquiring freehold and taking out mortgage where tenant acquired legal lease) - held not to exist.

Question 7

Midland Bank v Green

Answer 7

Burden was unregistered. Option to buy farm was granted to son, but father changed mind and transferred farm to mother in consideration of £500. This was more than nominal, overrode unprotected interest.

Question 8

Binions v Evans

Answer 8

Mrs E could claim licence even though it was not a property right, difficult to fit in with conventional property law.

Question 9

Hunt v Luck

Answer 9

Reasonable inquiries include visiting the property and asking any occupants if they have an interest and to whom they pay their rent.

Question 10

Hodgson v Marks

Answer 10

H transferred her house to E, he sold the house to Marks who had seen H when viewing the property, was held that her occupation bound Marks.

Question 11

Boland v Williams & Glynn

Answer 11

House was owned in joint names of couple. They moved and the second house was in husband’s sole name, Mrs B assumed it was in joint names. Held her occupation gave her overriding interest.

Question 12

City of London BS v Flegg

Answer 12

Fleggs’ rights were overreached, not binding.

Question 13

Chaudhary v Yavuz

Answer 13

Were not occupying a steel staircase.

Question 14

Link Lending v Hussein

Answer 14

Woman was still in occupation of her home when she was in a mental hospital and returning home twice a week check her house and post.

Question 15

Kingsnorth Trust v Tizard

Answer 15

Husband and wife seperated, she returned to matrimonial home during the day to care for children. Mr T said to surveyor he was seperated but on mortgage application said he was single. This lie was enough to give notice in unregistered property.

Question 16

Hypo-Mortgage Services v Robinson

Answer 16

Children can’t be in occupation until age of 18.

Question 17

Abbey National BS v Cann

Answer 17

C bought flat for mother, she must have realised he would need a mortgage, impliedly waived her priority. Cannot take occupation through agents.

Question 18

Re Boyle’s Claim

Answer 18

Must be in occupation at time of transfer.

Question 19

Stockholm Finance v Garden Holdings

Answer 19

Saudi Princess case - had not occupied for over a year but had left personal possessions in the property, no occupation capable of overriding status.