National provincial bank ltd v ainsworth. National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth [1965] AC 1175, House of Lords 2019-02-18

National provincial bank ltd v ainsworth Rating: 4,6/10 1363 reviews

National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth [1965] AC 1175

national provincial bank ltd v ainsworth

R, 111 where, as early as 1953, Sholl J. The distinction was well pointed out by Upjohn J. Whether, after the abolition of the old action of ejectment in 1852, the husband could bring proceedings against his wife for recovery of possession of his land is perhaps a matter of some doubt. The house was conveyed into their joint names, from this point on they shared payment of the household bills and the mortgage. It has been always held that a licensor, who has granted an interest, cannot derogate from his grant so as to destroy the interest granted; nor can his successor in title. Depending as they do on a wider construction of section 17 than it should have in my opinion, I would not myself regard the recent cases of Mine v.

Next

Mo Ying v Brillex Development Ltd [2015] HKEC 583

national provincial bank ltd v ainsworth

It is the way of English law to decide particular cases and then seek for the principle. The wife had not made any such contributions. She needs no licence from him to sustain her. In Mo Ying, the dispute was not between the husband and wife but between the wife and the third party who had bought the property from the husband. On the 15th March, 1961, the Respondent was granted a decree of judicial separation and on the 2nd May, 1961, an order for alimony was made in favour of the Respondent and there was also made an order for maintenance of each of her children taking into account the fact that she remained in occupation of 124, Milward Road rent free. However, as the question is of great importance in connection with unregistered land and furthermore as it is, in my opinion, proper to approach the true construction of section 70 against the background of the general law relating to unregistered land, I propose to consider the problem in relation to unregistered land first and to consider the construction of section 70 at the conclusion of my Opinion.

Next

National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth [1965] AC 1175

national provincial bank ltd v ainsworth

It is said to be a licence coupled with an equity. But equity did more than this if circumstances required. It is an authority which he cannot revoke, so long as it remains the matrimonial home. On 17th December, 1959, the husband conveyed both 7, Bank Buildings and 124, Milward Road to a company called Hastings Car Mart, Ltd. It is an authority which he cannot revoke, so long as it remains the matrimonial home. . And the order to be made must be fashioned accordingly: it may be that the wife should leave immediately or after a certain period: it may be subject to revision on a change of circumstances.

Next

Mo Ying v Brillex Development Ltd [2015] HKEC 583

national provincial bank ltd v ainsworth

She may commit a matrimonial offence which may lead the Court to refuse her the right to continue under her husband's roof; she may obtain as in this case a decree of judicial separation which at all events brings the husband's desertion to an end Harriman v. The section is a statutory application to registered land of the well-known rule protecting the rights of persons in occupation. I can see no ground for putting this limitation on the section. As I emphatically decline to equate the deserted wife with a contractual licensee or to draw any analogy between the two I shall be very brief on this subject. The case of Doe dem Merigan v.

Next

National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth [1965] AC 1175, House of Lords

national provincial bank ltd v ainsworth

In both situations actual occupation is required. The law on proprietary estoppel provides that the third party find their rights will be interfered with. In my judgment, therefore, so far as registered land is concerned, the right of a deserted wife to remain in occupation is a right within section 70 1 g and is an overriding interest, available against all successors, save where inquiry is made of her, and her rights are not disclosed. This use of the section may be illustrated by the case in the Court of Appeal of Stewart v. Stock v Dowden and Jones v Kernott may change the mere expression argument if the nature of the relationship imputes an assumption of a proprietary right.

Next

National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth

national provincial bank ltd v ainsworth

The powers of the Court under section 17, as the learned Lord Justice said, are sub- stantially the same as in any other proceeding where the ownership or possession of property is in question. Your Lordships heard much interesting discussion as to the rights of con- tractual licensees to remain in occupation as against third parties. From the interlocutory observations reported in the case, it seems that the members of the Court of Appeal felt, strongly at one time, the difficulties in the way of the deserted wife. Multiple people can be interested in land, and it can be used in multiple ways, there could be a single freeholder, or people can own land jointly. Easements and covenants involve rights and duties between neighbours, for instance with an agreement that a neighbour will not build on a piece of land, or to grant a right of way. Secondly, the courts have ample powers to detect, and to refuse to give effect to, sham or fraudulent transactions—such as that which was attempted in Ferris v.

Next

National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth

national provincial bank ltd v ainsworth

McWhirter so as to give her any rights against a bona fide purchaser for value whether with or without notice. The wife resisted saying that she had an overriding. And that is so here. The section is a statutory application to registered land of the well-known rule protecting the rights of persons in occupation. It is whether the Respondent is entitled to an over-riding interest within the meaning of section 7 1 g of the Land Registration Act, 1925, which has already been read to your Lordships. Secondly, the section has been treated, rightly in ray opinion, as conferring upon the court power, without disturbing established property rights, not to allow those rights to be fully enforced where to do so would run counter to the duties of one spouse to another.

Next

National Provincial Bank Limited v Ainsworth: HL 1965

national provincial bank ltd v ainsworth

The second comment which must be made on the argument is that even if one accepts the leap from the wife as licensee to other e. The money was used for his small business, Hastings Car Mart Ltd, incorporated at the end of 1959. However, he had left Mrs Ainsworth living in the home, deserting their relationship. The appeal raises two questions, one of general, the other of more limited scope. I do not see why it should be in the least embarrassing. I will give three illustrations: First, at common law.


Next

National Provincial Bank Limited v Ainsworth: HL 1965

national provincial bank ltd v ainsworth

The Court of Chancery determined that the use or benefit of property did not belong to the person on the title. In all these cases, if the wife has no right to remain there, the husband is fully entitled to sell the house to a purchaser or to give it away, even though the design of both is that the purchaser or donee should evict her for their own benefit. This stems from certain obita observations made by Goddard L. The first question that arises is what is the nature of the wife's occupation. Brighton and Hove was created as an authority in 1997. With the benefit of the further exploration of the doctrine that has since taken place, and of the argument that your Lordships have heard, I am clearly of opinion that in the end they took ihc wrong road and that the decision, whether for the reasons given by the majority of the court or for those given by Denning L. With his share of these Mr Kernott bought 114 Stanley Road, Benfleet in Essex, in May 2006 Mr Kernott sought payment of his half-share of Badger Hall Avenue.

Next