Millett LJ discussed the assertion of a vendor’s lien where a third party would be adversely affected: ‘A party with an equitable charge can be taken to agree to the postponement of his property against any party who was allowed to his knowledge to purchase the land on the faith that it is unencumbered.’ and
‘As soon as a binding contract for sale of land is entered into the vendor has a lien on the property for the purchase money and a right to remain in possession of the property until payment is made. The lien does not arise on completion but on exchange of contracts. It is discharged on completion to the extent that the purchase money is paid: In re Birmingham, decd.; Savage v. Stannard [1959] Ch. 523, cited with approval in London and Cheshire Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laplagrene Property Co. Ltd. [ 1971] Ch. 499 , 514. Even if the vendor executes an outright conveyance of the legal estate in favour of the purchaser and delivers the title deeds to him, he still retains an equitable lien on the property to secure the payment of any part of the purchase money which remains unpaid. The lien is not excluded by the fact that the conveyance contains an express receipt for the purchase money.
The lien arises by operation of law and independently of the agreement between the parties. It does not depend in any way upon the parties’ subjective intentions. It is excluded where its retention would be inconsistent with the provisions of the contract for sale or with the true nature of the transaction as disclosed by the documents. It is also excluded where, on completion, the vendor receives all that he bargained for: Capital Finance Co. Ltd. v. Stokes [1969] 1 Ch. 261 and Congresbury Motors Ltd. v. Anglo-Belge Finance Co. Ltd. [1971] Ch. 81. In each of those cases the vendor took a legal charge to secure payment. The unpaid vendor’s lien was held to be excluded notwithstanding that the charge later became void for want of registration. In Williams on Vendor and Purchaser , 4th ed. (1936), vol. 2, p. 984, there is a passage which deals with the exclusion of the lien: ‘The vendor may, however, waive or abandon his lien for the unpaid purchase-money, and his intention to do so may be either expressed or implied from the circumstances of the case.’
After dealing with express waiver or abandonment the author continues:
‘Where such waiver or abandonment is sought to be implied, the onus lies on those who deny the existence of the lien, which arises by the rule of equity in the absence of stipulation to the contrary; the question is one of the parties’ intention, to be determined by the documents they have executed and the circumstances of the case; and the test is, whether they have in effect agreed that the vendor shall have some other security or mode of payment in substitution for his lien.’
As the authorities demonstrate the test is an objective one. The question is: what intention is to be attributed to the parties from the transaction into which they have entered? . . ‘
Judges:
Millett LJ, Waite LJ, Thorpe LJ
Citations:
[1997] 1 WLR 415, [1996] EWCA Civ 1354, (1997) 74 P and CR 30
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Analysed – Kettlewell v Watson 1884
A vendor’s lien was postponed to the equitable interest of a third party with whom the purchaser from the vendor had had dealings. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Bank of Scotland Plc v King and others ChD 23-Nov-2007
The parties contracted to buy and sell a property. The lending bank sought possession, saying that it had advanced the money which had been spent acquirng the property. The defendant purchasers said that completion had not taken place, the full . .
Cited – Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd and Others SC 22-Oct-2014
The appellant challenged a sale and rent back transaction. He said that the proposed purchaser had misrepresented the transaction to them. The Court was asked s whether the home owners had interests whose priority was protected by virtue of section . .
Cited – Bank of Cyprus UK Ltd v Menelaou SC 4-Nov-2015
The bank customers, now appellants, redeemed a mortgage over their property, and the property was transferred to family members, who in turn borrowed from the same lender. A bank employee simply changed the name on the mortgage. This was ineffective . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Equity, Land, Contract
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261516