Birmingham Midshires BS v Sabherwal [2000] 80 P & CR 256 Case Summary

KEY POINTS

A situation where an equitable easement or an equitable right of entry transitions logically from the affected property to the sale proceeds doesn't make sense. However, in the case of an equitable interest as a tenant in common, this transition is possible.
An overriding interest can originate from proprietary estoppel, which establishes an equitable interest in a property. However, this type of interest can still be overreached, subject to certain conditions.
In family matters, such as in this case, it is possible to overreach such an interest. This is feasible because in family scenarios, the proceeds can be used to purchase another home or property, effectively preserving the interest.

Mrs. Sudesh Sabherwal and her husband, Mr. Yash Paul Sabherwal, were married and had two sons. They moved to England where they engaged in various property and business ventures, including owning a flat in Hatfield, a house in Welwyn, and a shop called Handy Stores in Chalfont St Peter.
Mrs. Sabherwal's contributions to the family's prosperity were significant, both in terms of her work and financial acumen. Mr. Sabherwal passed away in March 1987.
The family purchased a new house in Gerrards Cross, which was occupied by Mrs. Sabherwal and her sons and their families. The sons promised Mrs. Sabherwal that she would always have a roof over her head.
The sons applied for a loan from Birmingham Midshires Mortgage Services Ltd (BMMS) and secured the same on the house. When they defaulted, possession proceedings began. Mrs. Sabherwal claimed to have overriding interests and that she did not know how the money was spent and did not inquire about it.

This case highlights the flexibility of property law to accommodate the interests and arrangements of different parties, particularly in cases involving family dynamics where equitable interests arising from proprietary estoppel may need to be overreached to accommodate the changing needs and circumstances of the parties involved.

A family home in Xs’ names was occupied by Xs and Defendant. Xs took out a loan, secured on the house, with Defendant; Xs defaulted on the repayments. Possession proceedings began. Defendant claimed to have overriding interests; the mortgage company claimed to have overreached them.
CA accepted that Defendant had a beneficial interest (she had paid towards to the cost of the house) and she was in actual occupation (s.70(1)(g)).
However, CA held that Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 had not altered the common law and hence Flegg applied, so that Defendant’s interest had been overreached.

The current law has been unaffected by the 1996 act: “The 1996 Act contains nothing to exclude the essential overreaching provision contained in section 2(1)(ii) of the Law of Property Act 1925.
On the contrary, that provision is amended so as to meet the new terminology of the 1996 Act (see section 25(1) and Schedule 3 paragraph 4(1))”.
NB he said that article 8 did not apply because at this time the HRA 1998 was not yet in force and therefore ECHR couldn’t yet be applied in English courts.
Therefore this case does NOT mean that article 8 (right to private life, family and home) could not apply in the future.

Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch