Williams & Glyn's Bank plc v Boland [1981]

1. Facts

• Mr. Boland (Mr. B) was the sole registered title holder of a house.

• Mrs. Boland (Mrs. B) contributed to the purchase price of the house, establishing a beneficial entitlement.

• Mr. B subsequently took out a second mortgage on the house without Mrs. B's consent.

• Upon defaulting on the mortgage, the bank (Williams & Glyn's Bank, WGB) sought to sell the house.

• Mrs. B refused to leave and resisted the sale, asserting her right based on her beneficial interest.

2. Outcome

• The court held that Mrs. B had an overriding interest in the property.

• The bank’s assumption that the two trustee rule applied was incorrect; it had not obtained Mrs. B’s consent for the mortgage.

• Consequently, overreaching did not apply, and Mrs. B’s interest could not be extinguished by the bank’s sale.

3. Impact and Analysis

• Overriding Interest: The court confirmed that a beneficial entitlement, such as Mrs. B’s right to a share in the property, constitutes an overriding interest. This meant Mrs. B had the right to remain in the property despite the bank's claim.

• Actual Occupation: AO was defined in this case as requiring a "physical presence" on the land, with the court giving the phrase its literal meaning. Lord Wilberforce emphasised that the fact of occupation itself is crucial, with no additional elements being material. This approach has evolved over time, incorporating more subjective considerations.

• Doctrine of Unity: The case highlighted the historical context where marital unity often meant that the wife’s legal rights were considered secondary to her husband’s. This case illustrated how this doctrine affected the perception of Mrs. B's rights, treating her as a mere shadow of her husband in legal terms.

• Law Commission Recommendations: In response to Boland, the Law Commission initially recommended reversing the decision by proposing to abolish AO rights as overriding interests and implementing alternative protections for spouses. However, this recommendation was withdrawn within five years, indicating ongoing debate and evolution in property law and spousal rights.

• Historical Context vs. Modern Law: The case and subsequent recommendations reflect how property law has historically treated spouses and how reforms have been proposed to address perceived imbalances. The evolution in how AO and spousal rights are understood continues to be a significant aspect of property law.