Decided 13 May 1965 Ruling court House of Lords | End date May 13, 1965 | |
 | ||
Citation(s) [1965] UKHL 1 [1965] AC 1175 Prior action(s) National Provincial Bank Ltd v Hastings Car Mart Ltd [1964] Ch 665 Judge sittings Charles Hodson, Baron Hodson Similar Williams & Glyn's Bank v B, Abbey National Building, City of London Building, Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold, Errington v Wood | ||
National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth [1965] UKHL 1 is an English land law case, concerning the quality of a person's interest in a home when people live together, as well as licenses in land.
Contents
The House of Lords held that someone living in a home, who was deserted, did not by that fact alone have an interest in equity. Lord Wilberforce offered a definition of property rights, however this decision was compromised, and may not be counted as stable law, as the concept of the constructive trust was developed further.
Facts
Mr and Mrs Ainsworth lived in Milward Rd, Sussex and had four children. Mr Ainsworth was the registered owner, but moved out in 1957, borrowed £1000 in 1958 from the bank, and gave the bank a charge over the family home. This was used to finance his small business, called Hastings Car Mart Ltd, incorporated at the end of 1959. However, he had left Mrs Ainsworth living in the home, deserting their relationship. In 1962 Mr Ainsworth fell behind in the payments to the bank, and the bank sought possession of the house. However, Mrs Ainsworth refused to leave because she contended that she had an interest in the home that bound the bank.
Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal held Mrs Ainsworth had a right to occupy that bound the bank. Lord Denning MR held that the ‘deserted wife’s equity’ was capable of binding a third party like a bank. The reasons for his judgment were as follows.
Donovan LJ concurred. Russell LJ dissented.
House of Lords
The House of Lords reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal, finding that Mrs Ainsworth’s right did not count as a property right and was not capable of binding the bank.
Lord Upjohn said the following.
Lord Wilberforce noted that a deserted wife’s equity has been there partly because of a persistent post war housing shortage, and has been variously described as an equity, clog, licence or status of irremovability, and said this is all about whether despite Mrs Ainsworth’s rights against her husband, she had any against the bank. The wife, he continued,