Bs held a property on trust for them and their infant, P, and mortgaged out the property and, upon P, bank, claiming for possession on grounds that P had an overriding interest. CA denied Bs’ claim, stating that children under 18 couldn’t have “actual occupation” as they are only there as “shadows of their parents”. Young children cannot consent to the arrangement, and to allow children to “actually occupy” with s.70(1)(g) would be abused as a way of stopping mortgagees from ever repossessing. (Nourse LJ). Seems to move against the idea of “actual occupation” having a literal, not a legal, meaning.
