Stockholm Finance Ltd v Garden Holdings Inc

Stockholm Finance Ltd v Garden Holdings Inc
Citation(s)	[1995] NPC 162
Keywords
Actual occupation

Stockholm Finance Ltd v Garden Holdings Inc [1995] NPC 162 is an English land law case, concerning the meaning of actual occupation for the purpose of overriding interests in registered land.

Facts

A Saudi princess claimed she had been in actual occupation of a house, but had in fact not been in it for more than a year.

Judgment

The Judge held she was not in occupation of her London house because she had not actually been in it for over a year.

References

Land registration sources

LRA 2002 Sch 1 (LRA 1925 s 70(1))

LRA 2002 Sch 3 (LRA 1925 s 70(1)(g))

Link Lending v Bustard [2010] EWCA Civ 424

National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth [1965] UKHL 1

Hodgson v Marks [1971] EWCA Civ 8

Williams & Glyn’s Bank v Boland [1980] UKHL 4

Chhokar v Chhokar [1984] FLR 313, CA

Kling v Keston Properties (1985) 49 P & CR 212

Bristol & West BS v Henning [1985] EWCA Civ 6

Abbey National Building Society v Cann [1990] UKHL 3

Lloyds Bank v Rossett [1990] UKHL 14

Stockholm Finance v Garden Holdings [1995] NPC 162

City of London Building Society v Flegg [1987] UKHL 6

State Bank of India v Sood [1997] Ch 276

Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd [2014] UKSC 52

see English land law and easements

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 12/4/2014. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.

Stockholm Finance Ltd v Garden Holdings Inc

Facts

Judgment

See also

References