Hunt v Luck: CA 1902

Dr Hunt owned properties for which the rents were collected by his agent. The land were conveyed to a Mr Gilbert, who then mortgaged them. After the doctor’s death, his personal representatives challenged the validity of the conveyance. When the court rejected a challenge to the validity of the deed of conveyance, the claimants said that the mortgagee had notice of the tenancies, and through that, constructive notice of the interest of the claimants as receiver of the rents.
Held: The representative’s appeal failed. A purchaser will have constructive notice of any rights reasonably discoverable by inspection of the property, and, in particular, from enquiry of any occupier as to his interets and those of which he holds it. This does not extend to the rights of a landlord.
Vaughan Williams LJ said that: ‘if a purchaser or mortgageee has notice that the vendor or mortgagor is not in possession of the property, he must make enquiries of the person in possession, of the tenant who is in possession, and find out from him what his rights are, and if he does not choose to do that then whatever title he acquires as purchaser or mortgagee, will be subject to the title or right of the tenant in possession. I do not think that there is, for the purpose of ascertaining the title of the vendor, any obligation on the purchaser to make enquiries of a tenant with reference to anything but the possession and interest of the tenant.’

Vaughan Williams LJ
[1902] 1 Ch 428
England and Wales
Appeal fromHunt v Luck 1901
The court considered the nature of constructive notice. Farwell J said: ‘Constructive notice is the knowledge which the courts impute to a person upon presumption so strong of the existence of the knowledge that it cannot be allowed to be rebutted, . .

Cited by:
CitedHodgson v Marks CA 12-Mar-1971
The plaintiff had transferred her house to her lodger, expressing it to be for her love and affection for him. The judge at first instance had held that the true intention of the plaintiff had been that she would continue to live there as before and . .
CitedCS v ACS and Another FD 16-Apr-2015
Rule Against Appeal was Ultra Vires
W had applied to have set aside the consent order made on her ancillary relief application accusing the husband of material non-disclosure. She complained that her application to have the order varied had been refused on the ground that her only . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.252427