National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth
[1965] 2 All ER 472(Decision by: Lord Guest)
Between: National Provincial Bank Ltd
And: Ainsworth
Judges:
Lord Hodson
Lord Cohen
Lord GuestLord Upjohn
Lord Wilberforce
Subject References:
LAND
Property Rights
HUSBAND and WIFE
Deserted wife's right to remain in occupation of matrimonial home
No such proprietary right
Registered land
Overriding interest
Personal right not an overriding interest
Legislative References:
Land Registration Act, 1925 (15 & 16 Geo 5 c 25) - s 70(1)(g)
Case References:
Aaron v Aaron - (1944) 61 WN (NSW) 93; 2nd Digest Supp
Appleton v Appleton - [1965] 1 All ER 44; [1965] 1 WLR 25
Barclays Bank Ltd v Bird - [1954] 1 All ER 449; [1954] Ch 274; [1954] 2 WLR 319; 35 Digest (Repl) 457, 1477
Barnhart v Greenshields - (1853) 9 Moo PCC 18; 22 LTOS 178; 14 ER 204; 20 Digest (Repl) 319, 569
Bendall v McWhirter - [1952] 1 All ER 1307; [1952] 2 QB 466; 3rd Digest Supp
Bramwell v Bramwell - [1942] 1 All ER 137; [1942] 1 KB 370; 111 LJKB 430; 27 Digest (Repl) 261, 2109
Brennan v Thomas - [1953] VLR 111; [1953] ALR 214; 3rd Digest Supp
Brown v Draper - [1944] 1 All ER 246; [1944] KB 309; 113 LJKB 196; 170 LT 144; 31 Digest (Repl) 661, 7623
Cardiff Corpn v Robinson - [1956] 3 All ER 56; [1957] 1 QB 39; 120 JP 500; 38 Digest (Repl) 482, 52
Churcher v Street - [1959] 1 All ER 23; [1959] Ch 251; [1959] 2 WLR 66; 3rd Digest Supp
Clore v Theatrical Properties Ltd and Westby & Co Ltd - [1963] 3 All ER 483; 30 Digest (Repl) 535, 1703
Cobb v Cobb - [1955] 2 All ER 696; [1955] 1 WLR 731; 3rd Digest Supp
De Mattos v Gibson - (1859) 4 De G & J 276; 28 LJCh 498; 33 LTOS 193; 45 ER 108; 35 Digest (Repl) 573, 2491
Dickson v McWhinnie - [1958] SR (NSW) 179; 75 WN 204; 3rd Digest Supp
Dillwyn v Llewelyn - [1861-73] All ER 384; (1862) 4 De GF & J 517; 31 LJCh 658; 6 LT 878; 45 ER 1285; 25 Digest (Repl) 589, 281
Doe d Merigan v Daly - (1846) 8 QB 934; 7 LTOS 160; 115 ER 1126; sub nom Doe d Daley v Daley; 15 LJQB 295; 27 Digest (Repl) 260, 2103
Dudley (Lord) v Lady Dudley - (1705) Prec Ch 241; 24 ER 118; 20 Digest (Repl) 252, 1
Dunn v Dunn - [1948] 2 All ER 822; [1949] P 98; [1949] LJR 87; 112 JP 436; 27 Digest (Repl) 336, 2796
Errington v Errington - [1952] 1 All ER 149; [1952] 1 KB 290; 3rd Digest Supp
Ferris v Weaven - [1952] 2 All ER 233; 3rd Digest Supp
Foster v Robinson - [1950] 2 All ER 342; [1951] 1 KB 149; 31 Digest (Repl) 698, 7888
Gorulnick v Gorulnick - [1958] 1 All ER 146; [1958] P 47; [1958] 2 WLR 58; 3rd Digest Supp
H v H - see Hutchinson v Hutchinson
Harriman v Harriman - [1908-10] All ER Rep 85; [1909] P 123; 78 LJP 62; 100 LT 557; 73 JP 193; 27 Digest (Repl) 363, 3005
Henderson v Henderson - (1950) 51 SR (NSW) 217
Hill v Hill - [1916] WN 59; 27 Digest (Repl) 261, 2107
Hine v Hine - [1962] 3 All ER 345; [1962] 1 WLR 1124; 3rd Digest Supp
Hole v Cuzen - [1953] 1 All ER 87; sub nom Bradley-Hole v Cuzen; 3rd Digest Supp
Hutchinson v Hutchinson - [1947] 2 All ER 792; sub nom H v H; 27 Digest (Repl) 263, 2121
Jones v Smith - (1841) 1 Hare 43; 11 LJCh 83; 66 ER 943; 20 Digest (Repl) 341, 706
King v David Allen & Sons, Billposting Ltd - [1916-17] All ER Rep 268; [1916] 2 AC 54; 85 LJPC 229; 114 LT 762; 30 Digest (Repl) 542, 1763
Lee v Lee - [1952] 1 All ER 1299; [1952] 2 QB 489; 3rd Digest Supp
Lloyds Bank Ltd v Oliver's Trustee - [1953] 2 All ER 1443; [1953] 1 WLR 1460; 3rd Digest Supp
London & South Western Ry Co v Gomm - [1881-85] All ER Rep 1190; (1881), 20 ChD 562; 51 LJCh 193; 45 LT 505; 37 Digest (Repl) 91, 267
London County Council v Allen - [1914-15] All ER Rep 1008; [1914] 3 KB 642; 83 LJKB 1695; 111 LT 610; 78 JP 449; 40 Digest (Repl) 328, 2698
Maio v Piro - [1956] SASR 233
Malden & Coombe Corpn v Bennett - [1963] 2 All ER 527; [1963] 1 WLR 652; 127 JP 411; 3rd Digest Supp
Middleton v Baldock - [1950] 1 All ER 708; [1950] 1 KB 657; 31 Digest (Repl) 698, 7894
Nisbett & Potts' Contract, Re - [1905] 1 Ch 391, CA; [1904-07] All ER Rep 865; [1906] 1 Ch 386; 75 LJCh 238; 94 LT 297; 40 Digest (Repl) 81, 613
Old Gate Estates Ltd v Alexander - [1949] 2 All ER 822; [1950] 1 KB 311; 31 Digest (Repl) 726, 8090
Pargeter v Pargeter - [1946] 1 All ER 570; 27 Digest (Repl) 260, 2104
Phillips v Phillips - (1862) 4 De GF & J 208; 31 LJCh 321; 5 LT 655; 45 ER 1164; 20 Digest (Repl) 276, 202
Public Trustee v Kirkham, Kirkham v Kirkham - [1956] VLR 64
Reeves v Pope - [1914] 2 KB 284; 83 LJKB 771; 110 LT 503; 31 Digest (Repl) 267, 4008
Rimmer v Rimmer - [1952] 2 All ER 863; [1953] 1 QB 63; 3rd Digest Supp
Rogers v Hosegood - [1900-3] All ER Rep 915; [1900] 2 Ch 388; 69 LJCh 652; 83 LT 186; 40 Digest (Repl) 340, 2769
Rogers' Question, Re - [1948] 1 All ER 328; 27 Digest (Repl) 264, 2130
Shipman v Shipman - [1924] All ER Rep 365; [1924] 2 Ch 140; 93 LJCh 382; 131 LT 394; 27 Digest (Repl) 258, 2091
Short v Short - [1960] 3 All ER 6; [1960] 1 WLR 833; 3rd Digest Supp
Stewart v Stewart - [1947] 2 All ER 813; [1948] 1 KB 507; [1948] LJR 799; 27 Digest (Repl) 263, 2125
Street v Denham - [1954] 1 All ER 532; [1954] 1 WLR 624; 3rd Digest Supp
Symonds v Hallett - (1883), 24 ChD 346; 53 LJCh 60; 49 LT 380; 27 Digest (Repl) 258, 2090
Taylor v McHale - (1948), 151 EG 371
Thomas v Sorrell - (1673) Vaugh 330; 3 Keb 264; Freem KB 137; 124 ER 1098; 30 Digest (Repl) 527, 1645
Thompson v Earthy - [1951] 2 All ER 235; [1951] 2 KB 596; 115 JP 407; 27 Digest (Repl) 81, 621
Wabe v Taylor - [1952] 2 All ER 420; [1952] 2 QB 735; 3rd Digest Supp
Webb v Paternoster - (1619), 2 Roll Rep 143; 152, Palm 71; Poph 151; 81 ER 713, 719; 30 Digest (Repl) 539, 1725
Weldon v Weldon - (1883), 9 PD 52; 53 LJP 9; subsequent proceedings (1885), 54 LJP 60; 27 Digest (Repl) 284, 2289
Westminster Bank Ltd v Lee - [1955] 2 All ER 883; [1956] Ch 7; [1956] 3 WLR 376; 3rd Digest Supp
Wilson v Wilson - [1963] 2 All ER 447; [1963] 1 WLR 601; 3rd Digest Supp
Woodcock (Jess B) & Son Ltd v Hobbs - [1955] 1 All ER 445; [1955] 1 WLR 152; 20 Digest (Repl) 349, 775
Judgment date: 13 May 1965
Decision by:
Lord Guest
My Lords, I have had the advantage of reading the speech of my noble and learned friend, Lord Hodson, and there is nothing that I can usefully add. I agree that the appeal should be allowed.