Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Hunt v Luck

[1902] 1 Ch 428

Case summary last updated at 09/01/2020 19:45 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Hunt v Luck

G had fraudulently got P to hand over some property to him, which G later mortgaged to D. P claimed that the transaction was void since P’s consent was vitiated. CA found that D was not given actual or constructive (i.e. presumed) notice of P’s lack of consent and therefore D’s title was good. 
Vaughan Williams LJ: “if a purchaser or a mortgagee has notice that the vendor or mortgagor is not in possession of the property, he must make inquiries of the person in possession - of the tenant who is in possession - and find out from him what his rights are, and, if he does not choose to do that, then whatever title he acquires as purchaser or mortgagee will be subject to the title or right of the tenant in possession.” 

Hunt v Luck crops up in following areas of law