Bristol and West BS v Henning [1985] 1 WLR 778
Judgement for the case Bristol and West BS v Henning
Table Of Contents
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.
Browne-Wilkinson LJ
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.
RELATED CASES
For Further Study on Bristol and West BS v Henning
Land Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. ...
Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.
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 StartedSimilar Cases
Related Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
| Land Law | Registration Theory Notes (39 pages) |
Land Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. ...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.