31:
170:(£16,000) by taking out a mortgage loan (with an earlier lender) which they would pay back. It was meant for them all to live in. The registered owners and therefore borrowers were the Maxwell-Browns, despite their solicitor advising all four of them be registered. The law means Mr and Mrs Flegg had an equitable property right, stake or share from their contributions which the Maxwell-Browns held on trust for them.. The Maxwell-Browns had money trouble and remortgaged with the
211:. Moreover, if, as Lord Wilberforce held, the interest of the equitable tenant in common in actual occupation of the land "subsisted in reference to the land" within the meaning of section 70, it must equally, in my judgment, (being an interest by way of undivided share in the whole of the land and carrying a right to occupy the whole of the land) have affected the derivative estate, by way of term of years or deemed terms of years - cf.
169:
In 1977, Mr and Mrs Flegg sold their home of 28 years and used the £18,000 they realised to help their daughter and her husband (Mrs and Mr
Maxwell-Brown) to buy a new home, Bleak House. Their daughter and her husband, Mrs and Mr Maxwell-Brown also chose the house; they also put in the balance to buy
296:
trustees for sale may convey land held on trust for sale discharged from the trusts affecting the proceeds of sale and rents and profits until sale. Under both forms of trust the protection and the only protection of the beneficiaries is that capital money must be paid to at least two trustees or a
196:
under which, as quoted above, a disposition of registered land by the registered proprietor is subject "unless the contrary is expressed on the register, to the overriding interests, if any, affecting the estate transferred or created." He submits that, because it was overreached by the plaintiffs'
287:
One of the main objects of the legislation of 1925 was to effect a compromise between on the one hand the interests of the public in securing that land held in trust is freely marketable and, on the other hand, the interests of the beneficiaries in preserving their rights under the trusts. By the
152:
The case was controversial because it construed the statutory framework so that interests which might have been overriding were denied that status because they could be overreached in appropriate circumstances. In the following years, it has been questioned whether the overreaching rules, as
320:, either article 8 on the right to a home and family life, or Protocol 1, article on peaceful enjoyment of possessions. However, other commentators regard it as an accurate statement of the current law and there is no evidence to suggest that the decision contravenes the European Convention.
275:
section 70, people with actual occupation may have an overriding interest that would take priority over a third party, like the building society, this does not happen if the purchase money is paid to two or more trustees or a trust corporation. If that happens, under
174:
to raise £37,500 without the Fleggs' consent. The Fleggs were suspicious and entered a caution against dealings at the Land
Registry. The two borrowers defaulted (fell into arrears with payments) and the building society sought possession.
254:
which I have quoted above. The argument is unreal in that the parents continued in actual occupation of the land despite the execution by the registered proprietors of the plaintiffs' mortgage of which the parents knew
243:
on the creation of the plaintiffs' mortgage, it was thereafter not an overriding interest "for the time being" subsisting in reference to the land. But, again, this argument is inconsistent with the scheme of the
621:
speculated that clear overriding interests could not be overreached. A sale, mortgage or other dealing of two trustees for value to someone without notice (overreaching) is dealt with in works on Equity such as
315:
has come under substantial criticism, firstly, for misinterpreting the scheme of the statutes (as the Court of Appeal would have come to a different result) and more recently for potentially infringing the
188:
Dillon LJ held that, reversing the decision of the High Court, the Fleggs' interest in their home was not overreached through the building society's contract with the children.
201:, the parents' interest never affected the estate transferred to or created in the plaintiffs by their mortgage. But this argument is inconsistent with the whole scheme of the
227:"Being an equitable interest in the land, it is clearly an interest 'subsisting in reference' to the land. It also affects 'the estate transferred' within section 20(1)(b)."
349:
235:"All registered land shall,... be deemed to be subject to such of the following overriding interests as may be for the time being subsisting in reference thereto..."
271:
held that the building society's charge took priority, and could use the overreaching defence against the Fleggs’ pre-existing trust right. Although under the
756:
414:
268:
444:
217:
2 QB 160 - which is the estate in the land which the plaintiffs have by virtue of their mortgage. This was the conclusion of Lord
Denning MR in
496:
342:
157:, are compatible with the qualified rights to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and/or the right to a family life and home guaranteed in the
617:
524:
317:
158:
741:
280:, section 2(1)(ii), the interests of the beneficiaries will be overreached and will attach to the purchase price, not the property.
30:
335:
171:
746:
292:
a tenant for life may convey the settled land discharged from all the trusts powers and provisions of the settlement. By the
681:
562:
482:
192:
Mr. Wakefield for the plaintiffs relied, in one of his arguments to the contrary, on the wording of section 20(1)(b) of the
751:
725:
C Harpum, 'Overreaching, Trustees' Powers and the Reform of the 1925 Legislation' (1990) 49(2) Cambridge Law
Journal 277
639:
as in more than 95% of homes, registered land. The Medway Towns and
Portsmouth have several homes named in tribute to
85:
Appellant lender lost in the Court of Appeal but earlier won before His Honour Judge Thomas whose order was restored.
272:
245:
213:
202:
193:
470:
231:
Mr. Wakefield also relied on the words "for the time being" in the phrase in the opening words of section 70(1):
550:
580:
293:
277:
240:
198:
63:
626:. If a resident spouse's rights are overriding interests they will/would survive a sale by the two trustees.
69:
400:
510:
289:
142:
636:
458:
591:
576:
250:
219:
207:
138:
657:
640:
430:
404:
385:
368:
486:
434:
735:
566:
514:
146:
134:
703:
540:
500:
448:
420:
59:
728:
N Jackson, 'Overreaching in
Registered Land Law' (2006) 69 Modern Law Review 237
644:
327:
50:
City of London
Building Society v Edgar E Flegg and Joan E Flegg and others
239:
He submitted that, because the parents' interest was overreached under the
389:
382:
372:
365:
141:
case decided in the House of Lords on the relationship between potential
331:
248:
as explained in the passages in Lord
Wilberforce's speech in
635:
The name for 256 Grange Road, Gillingham, Kent, under
122:
Overreaching, overriding interest, actual occupation
304:Lords Mackay, Bridge and Goff concurred with both.
116:
104:
94:
89:
81:
76:
55:
45:
37:
23:
301:Lord Oliver gave a concurring, reasoned judgment.
197:mortgage under the overreaching provisions of the
285:
190:
343:
8:
660:for direct contributions to a purchase price
350:
336:
328:
29:
20:
259:Kerr LJ and Sir George Waller concurred.
416:National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth
269:Judicial Committee of the House of Lords
672:
608:
537:City of London Building Society v Flegg
130:City of London Building Society v Flegg
24:City of London Building Society v Flegg
682:National Westminster Bank Plc v Malhan
563:Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd
497:Abbey National Building Society v Cann
161:. Currently it appears that they are.
7:
647:and each has a museum on his works.
618:Williams & Glyn's Bank v Boland
525:Stockholm Finance v Garden Holdings
445:Williams & Glyn’s Bank v Boland
318:European Convention on Human Rights
283:Lord Templeman said the following.
223:Ch 312 , where he said, at p. 331:
14:
757:1987 in United Kingdom case law
483:Bristol & West BS v Henning
172:City of London Building Society
1:
214:Grand Junction Co Ltd v Bates
624:Snell's Principles of Equity
615:Academic work considered in
773:
720:Landmark Cases in Land Law
551:State Bank of India v Sood
273:Land Registration Act 1925
246:Land Registration Act 1925
203:Land Registration Act 1925
194:Land Registration Act 1925
159:Convention on Human Rights
16:1987 English land law case
742:English property case law
573:
559:
547:
533:
521:
507:
493:
479:
471:Kling v Keston Properties
467:
455:
441:
427:
411:
397:
380:
363:
358:Land registration sources
313:City of London BS v Flegg
121:
28:
474:(1985) 49 P & CR 212
294:Law of Property Act 1925
278:Law of Property Act 1925
241:Law of Property Act 1925
199:Law of Property Act 1925
401:Link Lending v Bustard
299:
257:
237:
229:
747:English land case law
511:Lloyds Bank v Rossett
290:Settled Land Act 1925
233:
225:
135:[1987] UKHL 6
752:House of Lords cases
598:Notes and references
143:overriding interests
145:and the concept of
643:such as this, see
297:trust corporation.
205:as interpreted in
718:N Gravells (ed),
706:, 1 AC 54, 73-74
637:land registration
587:
586:
459:Chhokar v Chhokar
126:
125:
764:
707:
701:
695:
692:
686:
677:
661:
654:
648:
633:
627:
613:
592:English land law
577:English land law
417:
352:
345:
338:
329:
139:English land law
33:
21:
772:
771:
767:
766:
765:
763:
762:
761:
732:
731:
715:
710:
702:
698:
693:
689:
685:EWHC 847, and
678:
674:
665:
664:
658:resulting trust
655:
651:
641:Charles Dickens
634:
630:
614:
610:
600:
588:
583:
569:
555:
543:
529:
517:
503:
489:
475:
463:
451:
437:
431:Hodgson v Marks
423:
415:
407:
393:
376:
359:
356:
326:
310:
265:
186:
184:Court of Appeal
181:
167:
153:interpreted by
111:
109:
99:
67:
62:
17:
12:
11:
5:
770:
768:
760:
759:
754:
749:
744:
734:
733:
730:
729:
726:
723:
714:
711:
709:
708:
696:
687:
671:
670:
669:
663:
662:
649:
628:
607:
606:
605:
604:
599:
596:
595:
594:
585:
584:
574:
571:
570:
560:
557:
556:
548:
545:
544:
534:
531:
530:
522:
519:
518:
508:
505:
504:
494:
491:
490:
480:
477:
476:
468:
465:
464:
456:
453:
452:
442:
439:
438:
428:
425:
424:
412:
409:
408:
398:
395:
394:
381:
378:
377:
364:
361:
360:
357:
355:
354:
347:
340:
332:
325:
322:
309:
306:
264:
263:House of Lords
261:
185:
182:
180:
177:
166:
163:
124:
123:
119:
118:
114:
113:
106:
102:
101:
98:Lord Templeman
96:
92:
91:
87:
86:
83:
79:
78:
74:
73:
57:
53:
52:
47:
46:Full case name
43:
42:
41:House of Lords
39:
35:
34:
26:
25:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
769:
758:
755:
753:
750:
748:
745:
743:
740:
739:
737:
727:
724:
721:
717:
716:
712:
705:
700:
697:
691:
688:
684:
683:
676:
673:
667:
666:
659:
653:
650:
646:
642:
638:
632:
629:
625:
620:
619:
612:
609:
602:
601:
597:
593:
590:
589:
582:
578:
572:
568:
565:
564:
558:
553:
552:
546:
542:
539:
538:
532:
527:
526:
520:
516:
513:
512:
506:
502:
499:
498:
492:
488:
485:
484:
478:
473:
472:
466:
461:
460:
454:
450:
447:
446:
440:
436:
433:
432:
426:
422:
419:
418:
410:
406:
403:
402:
396:
391:
387:
384:
379:
374:
370:
367:
362:
353:
348:
346:
341:
339:
334:
333:
330:
323:
321:
319:
314:
307:
305:
302:
298:
295:
291:
284:
281:
279:
274:
270:
262:
260:
256:
253:
252:
251:Boland's case
247:
242:
236:
232:
228:
224:
222:
221:
220:Boland's case
216:
215:
210:
209:
208:Boland's case
204:
200:
195:
189:
183:
178:
176:
173:
164:
162:
160:
156:
150:
148:
144:
140:
136:
132:
131:
120:
115:
107:
103:
97:
93:
90:Case opinions
88:
84:
80:
75:
71:
65:
61:
58:
54:
51:
48:
44:
40:
36:
32:
27:
22:
19:
719:
699:
690:
680:
675:
652:
631:
623:
616:
611:
561:
549:
536:
535:
523:
509:
495:
481:
469:
457:
443:
429:
413:
405:EWCA Civ 424
399:
312:
311:
308:Significance
303:
300:
286:
282:
266:
258:
249:
238:
234:
230:
226:
218:
212:
206:
191:
187:
168:
154:
151:
147:overreaching
129:
128:
127:
82:Prior action
77:Case history
49:
18:
645:Bleak House
462:FLR 313, CA
392:s 70(1)(g))
110:Lord Bridge
108:Lord Mackay
105:Concurrence
100:Lord Oliver
95:Decision by
736:Categories
713:References
668:References
487:EWCA Civ 6
435:EWCA Civ 8
581:easements
112:Lord Goff
56:Citations
390:LRA 1925
383:LRA 2002
375:s 70(1))
373:LRA 1925
366:LRA 2002
324:See also
255:nothing.
179:Judgment
117:Keywords
567:UKSC 52
528:NPC 162
515:UKHL 14
722:(2013)
704:UKHL 6
694:Ch 605
554:Ch 276
541:UKHL 6
501:UKHL 3
449:UKHL 4
421:UKHL 1
137:is an
70:All ER
60:UKHL 6
679:e.g.
603:Notes
386:Sch 3
369:Sch 1
165:Facts
155:Flegg
133:
38:Court
656:See
579:and
575:see
267:The
72:435
738::
149:.
68:3
66:54
64:AC
388:(
371:(
351:e
344:t
337:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
