Williams & Glyn Bank v Boland
Encyclopedia
Williams & Glyn's Bank v Boland [1980] UKHL 4 is a House of Lords
judgment in English property law
on overriding interest.
, Surrey
. Mr Boland, registered owner of the house, borrowed money from the bank for his building company, Epsom Contractors Ltd. Mr Boland failed to repay, and the bank sought possession. Mrs Boland argued that because she made substantial financial contributions to acquiring the home, she should be able to stay. The bank argued it did not qualify as a property right, basing its argument on the doctrine of conversion, and she should only get a share of any money made by her husband from the land, not a right enabling her to use it. Second, even if there was a property right, the bank’s defence was it registered its charge, and Mrs Boland’s right was not registered. The lack of registration defence does not work if the party claiming the unregistered right is in actual occupation. Then, that person has an overriding interest. But the bank argued that if she cohabited with her husband, she should not count as being in actual occupation because a bank’s investigation would not alert it to her having a property right in the land. It would be no surprise to find a shared occupancy.
in the property. The bank appealed contending that the wife's interest could only be considered a minor interest and that she could not be considered to be "in actual occupation". Lord Denning MR said the following.
(2) Even though the wife’s interest, in so far as it existed under a trust for sale, was an equitable interest capable of being overreached and therefore a ‘minor interest’ within s 3(xv) of the 1925 Act, it was also capable of being an overriding interest if it was protected by ‘actual occupation’, particularly if it was a house bought jointly by spouses to be lived in as a matrimonial home, because then it would be unreal to describe the spouses’ interests as merely an interest in the proceeds of sale, or rents and profits until sale, and there was every reason why, in that event, such an interest should acquire the status of an overriding interest. The wife’s interest, subsisting as it did ‘in reference to the land’, within the opening words of s 70(1), was by the fact of occupation made into an overriding interest and so protected by s 70(1)(g)
House of Lords
The House of Lords is the upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Like the House of Commons, it meets in the Palace of Westminster....
judgment in English property law
English property law
English property law refers to the law of acquisition, sharing and protection of wealth in England and Wales. Property law can refer to many things, and covers many areas. Property in land is the domain of the law of real property. The law of personal property is particularly important for...
on overriding interest.
Facts
Mr Michael Boland and Mrs Julia Sheila Boland lived on Ridge Park, BeddingtonBeddington
Beddington is a settlement between the London Boroughs of Sutton and Croydon. The BedZED low energy housing scheme is located here. In Beddington was a static inverter plant of HVDC Kingsnorth....
, Surrey
Surrey
Surrey is a county in the South East of England and is one of the Home Counties. The county borders Greater London, Kent, East Sussex, West Sussex, Hampshire and Berkshire. The historic county town is Guildford. Surrey County Council sits at Kingston upon Thames, although this has been part of...
. Mr Boland, registered owner of the house, borrowed money from the bank for his building company, Epsom Contractors Ltd. Mr Boland failed to repay, and the bank sought possession. Mrs Boland argued that because she made substantial financial contributions to acquiring the home, she should be able to stay. The bank argued it did not qualify as a property right, basing its argument on the doctrine of conversion, and she should only get a share of any money made by her husband from the land, not a right enabling her to use it. Second, even if there was a property right, the bank’s defence was it registered its charge, and Mrs Boland’s right was not registered. The lack of registration defence does not work if the party claiming the unregistered right is in actual occupation. Then, that person has an overriding interest. But the bank argued that if she cohabited with her husband, she should not count as being in actual occupation because a bank’s investigation would not alert it to her having a property right in the land. It would be no surprise to find a shared occupancy.
Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal held that the wife was in actual occupation under s 70(1)(g) of the 1925 Land Registration Act and that therefore she had an overriding interestOverriding interest
Overriding interest is an English land law concept. The general rule in registered conveyancing is that all interests and rights over a piece of land have to be written on the register entry for that land, otherwise, when anyone buys that piece of land, the interests won't apply to the purchaser,...
in the property. The bank appealed contending that the wife's interest could only be considered a minor interest and that she could not be considered to be "in actual occupation". Lord Denning MR said the following.
House of Lords
(1)The House of Lords dismissed the appeal and emphasised that 70(1)(g) of the 1925 Land Registration Act should be interpreted in plain English. Accordingly what was required was physical presence on the land; the word ‘actual’ was not intended to introduce any additional qualifications but merely emphasised that what was required was physical presence and not some entitlement in law. Since the wife was physically present in the matrimonial home, with all rights that occupiers had, including the right to exclude all others except those having similar rights, and the home was a matrimonial home intended to be occupied and in fact occupied by both spouses, both of whom had an interest in it, the wife was in actual occupation.(2) Even though the wife’s interest, in so far as it existed under a trust for sale, was an equitable interest capable of being overreached and therefore a ‘minor interest’ within s 3(xv) of the 1925 Act, it was also capable of being an overriding interest if it was protected by ‘actual occupation’, particularly if it was a house bought jointly by spouses to be lived in as a matrimonial home, because then it would be unreal to describe the spouses’ interests as merely an interest in the proceeds of sale, or rents and profits until sale, and there was every reason why, in that event, such an interest should acquire the status of an overriding interest. The wife’s interest, subsisting as it did ‘in reference to the land’, within the opening words of s 70(1), was by the fact of occupation made into an overriding interest and so protected by s 70(1)(g)