Howell v Montey and others
Language: English Series: Property and Compensation Reports ; (1991)61 PCR 18-22(3)Publication details: 1991Subject(s): Summary: CA 7 March 1990. The plaintiffs, M, were owners of a freehold house. The appellant H had recovered judgement against them in the sum of £2,173 and had subsequently obtained a charging order nisi upon the house. Shortly after M entered into a contract to sell the house. The purchasers obtained a certificate of search which gave them priority until 29 September 1987. The sale was completed on 4 September. On 16 September H applied to the Land Registry to register notice of the charging order against the title. The purchasers did not apply to register their title until 9 October by which time their priority period had expired. The registration of title took effect subject to the charging order nisi, which was subsequently made absolute. The purchaser applied to discharge the charging order and the registrar acceded to that application. An appeal against that decision was dismissed. the CA also dismissed the appeal holding that the order absolute should not have been made. It did not see| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS44166 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 45609-1001 |
CA 7 March 1990. The plaintiffs, M, were owners of a freehold house. The appellant H had recovered judgement against them in the sum of £2,173 and had subsequently obtained a charging order nisi upon the house. Shortly after M entered into a contract to sell the house. The purchasers obtained a certificate of search which gave them priority until 29 September 1987. The sale was completed on 4 September. On 16 September H applied to the Land Registry to register notice of the charging order against the title. The purchasers did not apply to register their title until 9 October by which time their priority period had expired. The registration of title took effect subject to the charging order nisi, which was subsequently made absolute. The purchaser applied to discharge the charging order and the registrar acceded to that application. An appeal against that decision was dismissed. the CA also dismissed the appeal holding that the order absolute should not have been made. It did not see