National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth

National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth
Court House of Lords
Decided 13 May 1965
Citation(s) [1965] UKHL 1 [1965] AC 1175
Case history
Prior action(s) National Provincial Bank Ltd v Hastings Car Mart Ltd [1964] Ch 665
Case opinions
Lord Denning MR; Lord Wilberforce
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Lord Hodson, Lord Cohen, Lord Guest, Lord Upjohn, Lord Wilberforce
Keywords
Licence, equity, property rights

National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth [1965] UKHL 1 is an English land law case, concerning the quality of a person's interest in a home when people live together, as well as licenses in land.

The House of Lords held that someone living in a home, who was deserted, did not by that fact alone have an interest in equity. Lord Wilberforce offered a definition of property rights, however this decision was compromised, and may not be counted as stable law, as the concept of the constructive trust was developed further.[1]

Facts

Mr and Mrs Ainsworth lived in Milward Rd, Sussex and had four children. Mr Ainsworth was the registered owner, but moved out in 1957, borrowed £1000 in 1958 from the bank, and gave the bank a charge over the family home. This was used to finance his small business, called Hastings Car Mart Ltd, incorporated at the end of 1959. However, he had left Mrs Ainsworth living in the home, deserting their relationship. In 1962 Mr Ainsworth fell behind in the payments to the bank, and the bank sought possession of the house. However, Mrs Ainsworth refused to leave because she contended that she had an interest in the home that bound the bank.

Judgment

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held Mrs Ainsworth had a right to occupy that bound the bank. Lord Denning MR held that the ‘deserted wife’s equity’ was capable of binding a third party like a bank. The reasons for his judgment were as follows.[2]

Donovan LJ concurred. Russell LJ dissented.

House of Lords

The House of Lords reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal, finding that Mrs Ainsworth’s right did not count as a property right and was not capable of binding the bank.

Lord Upjohn said the following.

Lord Wilberforce noted that a deserted wife’s equity has been there partly because of a persistent post war housing shortage, and has been variously described as an equity, clog, licence or status of irremovability, and said this is all about whether despite Mrs Ainsworth’s rights against her husband, she had any against the bank. The wife, he continued,[29]

See also

Notes

  1. See Jones v Kernott
  2. [1964] Ch 665, 684
  3. [1924] 2 Ch. 140, 146; 40 T.L.R. 483 , C.A.
  4. [1955] 1 W.L.R. 152; [1955] 1 All E.R. 445, C.A.
  5. (1947) 63 T.L.R. 645; sub nom. Hutchinson v Hutchinson [1947] 2 All E.R. 792
  6. [1948] 1 K.B. 507, 513; 64 T.L.R. 115; [1947] 2 All E.R. 813, C.A.
  7. [1952] 2 Q.B. 466; [1952] 1 T.L.R. 1332; [1952] 1 All E.R. 1307
  8. [1954] 1 W.L.R. 624; [1954] 1 All E.R. 532
  9. [1959] Ch. 251; [1959] 2 W.L.R. 66; [1959] 1 All E.R. 23
  10. [1952] W.N. 318; [1952] 2 All E.R. 233
  11. [1953] C.P.L. 416
  12. [1956] Ch. 7; [1955] 3 W.L.R. 376; [1955] 2 All E.R. 883
  13. (1619) 2 Roll.Rep. 143
  14. (1838) 4 M. & W. 538 , 543
  15. [1948] A.C. 173; 63 T.L.R. 529; [1947] 2 All E.R. 331, H.L.(E.)
  16. (1853) 17 Beav. 60 , 76.
  17. (1862) 4 De G.F. & J. 517 .
  18. (1884) 9 App.Cas. 699 , 713-714, P.C.
  19. [1955] 1 W.L.R. 213; [1955] 1 All E.R. 550, C.A.
  20. [1952] 1 K.B. 290; [1952] 1 T.L.R. 231; [1952] 1 All E.R. 149, C.A.
  21. [1916] 2 A.C. 54, H.L.(I.)
  22. [1936] 3 All E.R. 483, C.A.
  23. [1956] Ch. 7
  24. (1841) 1 Hare 43 , 60.
  25. (1853) 9 Moore P.C.C. 18, 32.
  26. 9 Moore P.C.C. 18, 32-35
  27. [1952] 2 Q.B. 489; [1952] 1 T.L.R. 968; [1952] 1 All E.R. 1299, C.A.
  28. [1965] AC 1175, 1232
  29. [1965] AC 1175, 1247-8

References

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.