AIB Group (UK) Ltd v Turner [2015]

1. Facts

• The case involved a dispute over the actual occupation (AO) of a property in England.

• The claimant (C) had previously lived in the property but moved to Barbados, only returning to England occasionally.

• The issue arose in the context of the property’s security and the claimant's rights regarding the property.

2. Outcome

• The court determined that the claimant had ceased to be in actual occupation of the property.

• Despite the property being owned by the claimant, their move to Barbados and infrequent visits to the house in England meant that their occupation was not deemed actual but rather notional.

3. Impact and Analysis

• Actual vs. Notional Occupation: The case highlights the distinction between actual and notional occupation. For a claim of AO to be valid, the occupation must be genuine and continuous, not just theoretical or intermittent.

• Implications for Second Homes: The ruling emphasises that issues of AO in the context of second homes can be complex and require careful consideration of how frequently and actively the property is used by the owner.

• Resolution of AO Claims: This case underscores that courts will assess the reality of occupation based on physical presence and usage, rather than merely nominal or occasional stays.