Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Overreaching In Registered Land Law.
View graph of relations

Overreaching In Registered Land Law.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Overreaching In Registered Land Law. / Jackson, Nicola.
In: Modern Law Review, Vol. 69, No. 2, 03.2006, p. 214-241.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Jackson, N 2006, 'Overreaching In Registered Land Law.', Modern Law Review, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 214-241. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2006.00582.x

APA

Jackson, N. (2006). Overreaching In Registered Land Law. Modern Law Review, 69(2), 214-241. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2006.00582.x

Vancouver

Jackson N. Overreaching In Registered Land Law. Modern Law Review. 2006 Mar;69(2):214-241. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2230.2006.00582.x

Author

Jackson, Nicola. / Overreaching In Registered Land Law. In: Modern Law Review. 2006 ; Vol. 69, No. 2. pp. 214-241.

Bibtex

@article{9c99809122424c92b715bb197ed29ed6,
title = "Overreaching In Registered Land Law.",
abstract = "Beneficial interests under a trust were not intended to be overriding interests under section 70(1)(g) of the Land Registration Act 1925. The position was altered by Williams & Glyn's Bank Ltd v Boland, which determined that an interest under a trust for sale would bind a purchaser if the beneficiary were in actual occupation. The decision raised the question whether such interests could be overreached once the beneficiary was in occupation of the trust property. City of London Building Society v Flegg held that the relevant beneficial interest had been overreached. Both decisions assume that overreaching in registered conveyancing takes effect as it does in unregistered land. Yet there is considerable evidence that the Land Registration Act contains its own overreaching machinery. The House of Lords applied the wrong overreaching provisions in Boland and Flegg and there is no legal basis on which to recognise that trust interests can override a subsequent disposition under section 70(1)(g).",
author = "Nicola Jackson",
note = "RAE_import_type : Journal article RAE_uoa_type : Law",
year = "2006",
month = mar,
doi = "10.1111/j.1468-2230.2006.00582.x",
language = "English",
volume = "69",
pages = "214--241",
journal = "Modern Law Review",
issn = "1468-2230",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Overreaching In Registered Land Law.

AU - Jackson, Nicola

N1 - RAE_import_type : Journal article RAE_uoa_type : Law

PY - 2006/3

Y1 - 2006/3

N2 - Beneficial interests under a trust were not intended to be overriding interests under section 70(1)(g) of the Land Registration Act 1925. The position was altered by Williams & Glyn's Bank Ltd v Boland, which determined that an interest under a trust for sale would bind a purchaser if the beneficiary were in actual occupation. The decision raised the question whether such interests could be overreached once the beneficiary was in occupation of the trust property. City of London Building Society v Flegg held that the relevant beneficial interest had been overreached. Both decisions assume that overreaching in registered conveyancing takes effect as it does in unregistered land. Yet there is considerable evidence that the Land Registration Act contains its own overreaching machinery. The House of Lords applied the wrong overreaching provisions in Boland and Flegg and there is no legal basis on which to recognise that trust interests can override a subsequent disposition under section 70(1)(g).

AB - Beneficial interests under a trust were not intended to be overriding interests under section 70(1)(g) of the Land Registration Act 1925. The position was altered by Williams & Glyn's Bank Ltd v Boland, which determined that an interest under a trust for sale would bind a purchaser if the beneficiary were in actual occupation. The decision raised the question whether such interests could be overreached once the beneficiary was in occupation of the trust property. City of London Building Society v Flegg held that the relevant beneficial interest had been overreached. Both decisions assume that overreaching in registered conveyancing takes effect as it does in unregistered land. Yet there is considerable evidence that the Land Registration Act contains its own overreaching machinery. The House of Lords applied the wrong overreaching provisions in Boland and Flegg and there is no legal basis on which to recognise that trust interests can override a subsequent disposition under section 70(1)(g).

U2 - 10.1111/j.1468-2230.2006.00582.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1468-2230.2006.00582.x

M3 - Journal article

VL - 69

SP - 214

EP - 241

JO - Modern Law Review

JF - Modern Law Review

SN - 1468-2230

IS - 2

ER -