Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset

[1989] Ch 350

Case summary last updated at 09/01/2020 20:33 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset

D1 and D2 bought a semi-derelict house in only D1’s name. A family trust fund paid for D1’s house. D1 took out a mortgage from P without telling D2. D2 made no financial contribution. D1 deserted D2 and, failing payments, P sought possession of the house. CA found for D2, saying that a semi-derelict house IS capable of actual occupation and that the constant presence of D2’s agents (in this case builders) = actual occupation. Builders were as much D2’s agents as D1’s. CA held that the relevant date for determining whether overriding interest/disposition has priority is the date of execution, NOT of registration. Here, D1 mortgaged to P AFTER the overriding interest had been executed i.e. actual occupation had begun, and therefore P’s mortgage was subject to OI. 
 
Nicholls LJ: The everyday meaning given to “actual occupation” by Wilberforce in Williams’ and Glyn’s Bank extends to occupying incomplete houses. I can occupy without “inhabiting”, and this extends to agents e.g. residential caretaker. 
 
Mustill LJ (dissenting): Nicholls LJ is pushing the ordinary meaning of “actual occupation” too far. 

Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset crops up in following areas of law