Land Law Seminar 1 - Unregistered title to land; overreaching. cases and answers included PDF

Preview

Summary

Unregistered title to land; overreaching. cases and answers included...

Description

LX2082: Land Law 2020-21 Small Group Class 1: Unregistered title to land; overreaching This SGC will enable students to learn and understand the protection of third party interests in unregistered land, as well as the operation of overreaching, through a close reading of the most significant cases. Reading: Bevan Chapters 1 & 3 OR Dixon: Chapters 1 & 3 Journal Articles: (available via Westlaw) Harpum C, ‘Purchasers With Notice of Unregistered Land Charges’ (1981) 40(2) Cambridge Law Journal 213-217 Harpum C, ‘Overreaching, Trustees’ Powers and the Reform of the 1925 Legislation’ (1990) 49 Cambridge Law Journal 277-333 Main cases Midland Bank Trust Co. v Green [1981] AC 513 Kingsnorth Finance Co. Ltd. v Tizard [1986] 1 WLR 783 City of London Building Society v Flegg [1988] AC 54

Questions 1. Midland Bank Trust Co. v Green [1981] AC 513 How does this case illustrate the changes introduced by the Land Charges Act 1925 with regard to the protection of third party rights and interests in land with unregistered title? Why was the plaintiff bank not bound by Geoffrey Green’s interest, and why were the parents’ actions not held to be fraudulent? - The parents actions were not fraudulent as there was no requirement in s13(3) of the 1925 act that the purchaser should act in good faith. It was not fraud to rely on rights conferred by statute even if these rights were exercised in bad faith. Therefore, the son’s option was not binding on the mother’s estate. -

2. Kingsnorth Finance Co. Ltd. v Tizard [1986] 1 WLR 783 Consider why the mortgagee (Kingsnorth Finance) was bound by Mrs Tizard’s

interest. How does this case illustrate the doctrine of notice? - The doctrine of notice is used to sort out the priority of equitable interests where land is unregistered and not governed by the LCA 1925. - The question of whether the wife's beneficial interest bound the bank therefore fell to be determined by the doctrine of notice The court found that the wife’s beneficial interest in the property should serve to bind the defendant as per the doctrine of notice. There were clear inconsistencies - The wife had 50% equitable interest in the home. The lenders mortgage was subject to Mrs Tizards equitable interest. - Mrs Tizard had an equitable interest in the house, made overriding by her actual occupation Actual occupation was found on the basis of Kingsnorth Finance’s failure to carry out a reasonably careful inspection of the property – their inspection was arranged at a time to suit Mr Tizard, and at which Mrs Tizard would not be present; the presence of children should have altered the bank to make further enquiries 3. City of London Building Society v Flegg [1988] AC 54 Explain the operation of the principle of overreaching as it relates to this case. - Overreaching is a mechanism aimed at achieving efficient conveyancing with minimal regard to protecting interests held in land. It applies where there is a trust of land in both registered and unregistered land. - Overreaching relates to this case as the Fleggs interest had been overreached. Their right existed only in the proceeds of the sale. Once overreaching operated to detach the beneficial interest from the land to the proceeds of sale there is no longer an interest in land capable of being an overriding interest. - Provided the purchase price is paid to at least two trustees the purchaser irrespective of whether he had notice of the beneficiaries rights will take the land free from those rights (City of London Building Society v Flegg) Why is this principle so important? Do not consider those aspects of the case that might relate to registered land. - the principle of overreaching is important because it ensures that a purchaser of land who satisfies the conditions of overreaching will not be bound by the interests of beneficiaries under a trust - Overreaching is important as it ensures that the purchaser of land takes the property without there being any beneficial interests in the way of the sale....