Where a person (A) asserts an overriding interest against a purchaser (P) of registered land, and does so on the basis of his “actual occupation” at the material time, he cannot rely upon the fact that the land was occupied by a company. This is so even though A was regularly present in his capacity as director and/or owner of the company: see Lloyd v Dugdale [2001] 48 EG 129 (CS), taking yet another hard judicial look at para (g) of section 70(1) of the Land Registration Act 1925.
It would be otherwise, of course, if A had been present in his personal capacity, or if he had (even out of occupation) been receiving rent from the company.
The same case also affirms (following Ashburn Anstalt v WJ Arnold & Co (No 1) [1989] Ch 1) that P does not incur liability as trustee simply because the land was expressly conveyed subject to the claim being made by A.
Start your free trial today
Your trusted daily source of commercial real estate news and analysis. Register now for unlimited digital access throughout April.
Including:
- Breaking news, interviews and market updates
- Expert legal commentary, market trends and case law
- In-depth reports and data-led analysis
Where a person (A) asserts an overriding interest against a purchaser (P) of registered land, and does so on the basis of his “actual occupation” at the material time, he cannot rely upon the fact that the land was occupied by a company. This is so even though A was regularly present in his capacity as director and/or owner of the company: see Lloyd v Dugdale [2001] 48 EG 129 (CS), taking yet another hard judicial look at para (g) of section 70(1) of the Land Registration Act 1925.
It would be otherwise, of course, if A had been present in his personal capacity, or if he had (even out of occupation) been receiving rent from the company.
The same case also affirms (following Ashburn Anstalt v WJ Arnold & Co (No 1) [1989] Ch 1) that P does not incur liability as trustee simply because the land was expressly conveyed subject to the claim being made by A.
