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.” 

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Land Law study materials?

Our law notes have been a popular underground sensation for 10 years:

  • Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates
  • Includes copious academic commentary in summary form
  • Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole
  • Covers all major cases for LLB exams
  • Satisfaction guaranteed refund policy
  • Recently updated
Land Law Notes

Land Law Notes >>