Defendant 1 bought a house in which he and Defendant 2 lived. He mortgaged the house, with her knowledge and approval, and when he ceased payments the bank, Plaintiff, sued for possession.
CA rejected Defendant 2’s claim to an overriding interest under s.70(1)(g) because Defendant 2 had consented or gone along with the decision to give priority to the bank’s charge over the land. Therefore she could not claim her interest to have priority.
There was no agreement, express or implied.
However since Defendant 2 approved of the mortgage and benefited from it, it was to be imputed that she consented to the bank’s interest taking priority over hers.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Land Law | Registration Theory Notes (39 pages) |