Midland Bank v Green [1981] AC 513

A father granted to his son, Plaintiff, a 10-year option to purchase his farm at a set price. Through the default of the Plaintiff's solicitors the option was not registered as a Class C(iv) estate contract.

Defendant later conveyed the farm in 1967 to his wife, Defendant at a vastly deflated cost so as to prevent Plaintiff, with whom he had had an argument, from exercising his right.

HL held that Defendant was a purchaser within the meaning of the Land Registration Act and, following s.2 of the act, the charge was void against Defendant.

It denied that there was a BF requirement or a requirement that the purchaser provide adequate consideration.

Wilberforce points out not only that BF is not required under the act, but also that to include it would produce immense difficulties e.g. examination of the buyer’s and seller’s motives.