First National Bank v Thompson
Language: English Series: All England Law Reports ; (1996) 1 All ER 140-151(12)Publication details: 1996Subject(s): Summary: CA 12 July 1995. On 10 July 1991, T executed a legal charge on a property to plaintiff bank F to secure their indebtedness for which he was not the registered proprietor or entitled to be so at date of charge. On 12 September 1991, the legal estate transferred to T who was duly registered as proprietor on 9 December 1991. In 1992 F applied to register charge with Land Registry. T objected on grounds that the charge was ineffective under Land Registration Act 1925 s25 and s37 as he was neither proprietor nor entitled to be one on 10 July 1991. On appeal, F contended that T had created a legal charge by estoppel. Therefore the doctrine of feeding the estoppel was correct in these circumstances and was not precluded by the terms of the 1925 Act.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS54420 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 10221-1001 |
CA 12 July 1995. On 10 July 1991, T executed a legal charge on a property to plaintiff bank F to secure their indebtedness for which he was not the registered proprietor or entitled to be so at date of charge. On 12 September 1991, the legal estate transferred to T who was duly registered as proprietor on 9 December 1991. In 1992 F applied to register charge with Land Registry. T objected on grounds that the charge was ineffective under Land Registration Act 1925 s25 and s37 as he was neither proprietor nor entitled to be one on 10 July 1991. On appeal, F contended that T had created a legal charge by estoppel. Therefore the doctrine of feeding the estoppel was correct in these circumstances and was not precluded by the terms of the 1925 Act.