LS3529 Exam Essay Question Re National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth [1965] AC 1175 PDF

Preview

Summary

Discuss the importance of the judgment in the case of National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth [1965] AC 1175. How is it useful in illustrating one aspect of an important distinction in relation to the nature of rights relating to land?...

Description

LS3529 Question 2 51658883

Discuss the importance of the judgment in the case of National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth [1965] AC 1175. How is it useful in illustrating one aspect of an important distinction in relation to the nature of rights relating to land?

National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth [1965] AC 1175 is a landmark case in English land law, family law and equity, relating to the nature of a person's interest in a home, along with licenses in land. Firstly, we shall examine the facts of the case and the issues surrounding it. Then, the decision and the reasoning shall be discussed, followed by an analysis of the importance of the judgement and the influence it had on various fields of law.

Facts and issue In 1957, Mr Ainsworth deserted his wife and four children, leaving them in occupation of the matrimonial home, which he had purchased in 1956 and of which he was the sole registered proprietor. The wife obtained a decree of judicial separation, as part of which she was permitted to continue living in the matrimonial home rent-free. The defendant ran a car dealership business and gave the bank a charge over the house in order to secure the debts of his company. Subsequently, he fell behind in payments, and the bank soon sought possession of the house, to which the wife objected. In her claim, Mrs Ainsworth argued that she, being in occupation of the house, had an overriding interest in the property. The overwhelming problem here called for an effort to balance matrimonial relations and real property rights. Two principal issues were raised by the bank’s action for possession. The first one was whether Mrs Ainsworth had a right that could bind the bank. The other one was

LS3529 Question 2 51658883 whether the overriding interest under section 70(1)(g) of the Land Registration Act 1925, which protected ‘‘the rights of every person in actual occupation of the land or in receipt of the rents and profits thereof, save where inquiry is made of such person and the rights are not disclosed” extended to rights of deserted wives.

Decision and reasoning The Bank successfully argued its case at first instance; however, this decision was reversed on the appeal. The House of Lords ruled that Mrs Ainsworth’s right did not amount to a property right and was incapable of binding the bank. Lord Wilberforce ([1965] 2 All E.R. 471, at 492) stated that a “deserted wife’s equity” was to a certain extent present because of a continuing post-war housing crisis. However, in his words, the wife’s rights in respect of the occupation of Mr Ainsworth’s property were, in essence, of a personal kind. He noted that for a right or an interest to be recognised as proprietary, it must be “definable, identifiable by third parties, capable in its nature of assumption by third parties, and have some degree of permanence or stability”. This was not the case here. The separation agreement entitling the wife to stay in the house was merely a license, which is a non-proprietary, personal right that cannot be enforced universally. Ultimately, the question was whether giving protection to Mrs Ainsworth would not result in injustice to third parties and a total departure from wellaccepted principles of real property law, and the answer was negative. Also, for the purposes of overriding interests, the Land Registration Act 1925 required a right in reference to the land. Once again, Mrs Ainsworth held no more than a personal right against her husband and could not, therefore, have an overriding interest binding the bank. Hence, she could not resist possession.

LS3529 Question 2 51658883 The importance of the judgment 1. Interest in land capable of binding successors in title The case of Ainsworth essentially clarified that a right over the land must amount to, at the minimum, a legal or equitable interest in land. Following the common law characteristics of property, Lord Wilberforce noted that: ‘Before a right or an interest can be admitted into the category of property, or of a right affecting property, it must be definable, identifiable by third parties, capable in its nature of assumption by third parties, and have some degree of permanence or stability.’ Mrs Ainsworth’s rights were not rights in rem as equitable interests are, but merely personal rights “against her husband, enforceable by proceeding against his person, which he could satisfy by rendering her conjugal rights, i.e. by living with her and supporting her in a suitable home” (at p. 492).

2. The effect on licence theory The House of Lords distinctly communicated that Mrs Ainsworth was not a licensee of her husband. Lord Wilberforce (at p.496) concluded that “neither contractual licenses nor those licenses where money has been expended by the licensee…afford any useful analogy or basis on which to determine the character of the wife’s rights”. Lord Upjohn and Lord Wilberforce suggested that a licensee, as in Errington v Errington [1952] 1 Q.B. 290, might acquire a proprietary interest in those cases where one spends money on someone’s property and thereby acquires an interest in land. However, they submitted that the case in consideration had little effect on the licence doctrine.

3. Equity and rights of occupation

LS3529 Question 2 51658883 The judgment in Ainsworth is relevant not only in context of a discussion of types of interests in land, but also in its relation to rights concerning occupation of a matrimonial home. The ‘deserted wife’s equity’, a doctrine furthered by Lord Denning which concerned a wife’s right to remain in the matrimonial property was brought to a close with the Ainsworth case. His Lordship believed it to be unconscionable for a husband to leave his wife homeless simply on the basis that she had no legal right or equitable interest in the land. Whilst such right was not formally recognized, earlier caselaw emphasized the need for wife’s protection. In terms of equity, this decision is considered to have rolled equity back, instead of taking it forward. The House of Lords in Ainsworth halted the continuous growth of the ‘deserted wife’s equity’ doctrine, which the Court of Appeal enthusiastically developed. This limitation is exactly what makes Ainsworth a landmark case in Equity, placing boundaries for subsequent cases. In addition, Ainsworth is a vital case in terms of equity’s integration into the field of family property. Although the ‘deserted wife’s equity’ concept was rejected in Ainsworth, it served as a catalyst for the pursuance of more structure-based rights in this area. It seems that Lord Denning had done what was necessary to call for a legislative response from the Parliament. In 1967, new statutory rights of occupation were established named ‘matrimonial home rights’ under the Matrimonial Homes Act 1967. Such rights have come a long way and are currently contained in the Family Law Act 1996; with the effect being that where one spouse or civil partner owns the family home, the non-owning spouse has, first, a right not to be evicted or excluded in occupation, and, secondly, with court’s permission, to enter and occupy the property if not already in occupation. These rights are particularly important in cases where one spouse leaves the other, or the couple is under a risk of separation. If registered, they also bind the purchaser and a trustee in bankruptcy.

LS3529 Question 2 51658883 Word count: 1,162...