Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Bello and others
Language: English Series: Property and Compensation Reports ; (1992) 64 P&CR 48-56(5)Publication details: 1992Subject(s): Summary: CA 8 November 1991. The second defendant M had been engaged by B to renovate a property. Stage payments were expected but not made and it was agreed that M should take over and use the property until B returned to the UK and made full payment. M completed the renovation and moved in in August 1988. In November 1989 the bank obtained a charging order on the property and commenced proceedings for possession and sale. M argued that they had an overriding interest as defined in Land Registration Act 1925. CA held in favour of M on the grounds that they enjoyed exclusive possession of the property despite not paying rent and the case was referred back to ChD for further direction and a further hearing.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS47139 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 60917-1001 |
CA 8 November 1991. The second defendant M had been engaged by B to renovate a property. Stage payments were expected but not made and it was agreed that M should take over and use the property until B returned to the UK and made full payment. M completed the renovation and moved in in August 1988. In November 1989 the bank obtained a charging order on the property and commenced proceedings for possession and sale. M argued that they had an overriding interest as defined in Land Registration Act 1925. CA held in favour of M on the grounds that they enjoyed exclusive possession of the property despite not paying rent and the case was referred back to ChD for further direction and a further hearing.