Strand Securities Ltd v Caswell: CA 2 Feb 1965

The leaving of furniture in a flat or having a key to the flat or making occasional use of it was not enough to constitute actual occupation. Where A permits B to occupy land on B’s own behalf by way of gratuitous licence, A’s capacity as licensor will not by itself entitle him to claim to be in actual occupation of the land, though the position will be different if B occupies as the representative of A.
Lord Denning MR said that object of section 70(1)(g) was ‘to protect a person in actual occupation of land from having his rights lost in the welter of registration . . No one can buy the land over his head and thereby take away or diminish his rights’
Russell LJ accepted that, if a tenant puts a resident caretaker into a residential flat to look after it, that would be actual occupation by the tenant. Russell L.J. observed that the caretaker, by her occupation for which she was employed, would be the representative of the tenant and her occupation might therefore be regarded as his.

Lord Denning MR, Russell LJ
[1965] Ch 958, [1965] EWCA Civ 1
Land Registration Act 1925 70(1)(g)
England and Wales
Cited by:
AppliedLloyd and others v Dugdale and Another CA 21-Nov-2001
The claimants asserted a right to possession of land, and the defendant resisted, claiming a proprietary estoppel. A predecessor had intended to grant a sub-lease to the defendant, who had arranged for his company JAD Ltd to execute major works on . .
CitedLink Lending Ltd v Bustard CA 23-Apr-2010
The respondent had been detained in a secure mental unit for a year. In that time her home was charged to the appellant. She asserted that she had been a person in actual occupation. The chargee now appealed against a finding that the respondent had . .
CitedScott 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 . .
CitedLloyds Bank plc v Rosset CA 13-May-1988
Claim by a wife that she has a beneficial interest in a house registered in the sole name of her husband and that her interest has priority over the rights of a bank under a legal charge executed without her knowledge. The case raises a point of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Registered Land

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.183128