Chhokar v Chhokar [1984]

1. Facts

• Mr. Chhokar (Mr. C) was the sole registered title-holder of the property.

• Mrs. Chhokar (Mrs. C) contributed to the purchase price and continued to live in the property.

• The marriage fell apart, and Mrs. C stayed in the property.

• While Mrs. C was hospitalised after giving birth, Mr. C changed the locks and sold the house to Mr. P at a 30% undervalue.

• The issue arose whether Mrs. C had an overriding interest in the property despite being away at the time of the sale.

2. Outcome

• The Court of Appeal held that Mrs. C had an overriding interest in the property.

• The court recognised that Mrs. C was in actual occupation (AO) of the property through the presence of her belongings and her intention to return, despite being temporarily away.

• The decision was guided more by sympathy for Mrs. C’s situation than by strict legal principles.

3. Impact and Analysis

• Actual Occupation (AO): The case affirmed that AO could be established even if the occupant was temporarily away from the property due to circumstances like hospitalisation. Mrs. C's continuing presence, evidenced by her belongings and intention to return, was sufficient for AO.

• Parallels with Link Lending: Similar to Link Lending v Bustard, where non-human indicators of occupation (like a car) were recognised as AO, Chhokar illustrated that physical presence was not always necessary if other indicators of occupation were present. The ruling considered Mrs. C's situation with sympathy, reinforcing the idea that AO can be based on the overall context and intentions of the occupant.

• Proxy Element and Post-LRA 2002 Interpretation: After the introduction of the Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002), a purchaser could argue that a reasonably careful inspection of the property would not reveal the presence of someone living there. This might deny overriding interest if AO is not evident to an external observer. However, the subjective elements of AO still play a role in countering potential injustices where occupants are not physically present but have a legitimate interest.

• Sympathy vs. Principles: The decision in Chhokar highlights the tension between strict legal principles and the courts' sympathy towards individuals in vulnerable situations. The approach underscores the need for a balanced consideration of both legal and equitable interests, reflecting evolving attitudes towards property rights and personal circumstances.