Which case confirms that children cannot be in actual occupation in their own right?
A) Hypo-Mortgage Services Ltd v. Robinson
B) Williams & Glynn Bank v. Boland
C) Mortgage Corp v. Shaire
D) Lloyds Bank v. Rossett
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q17: actual occupation is in itself an interest
Q18: a purchaser can be bound by the
Q19: an employee or agent can occupy a
Q20: if an 'easement' is made the subject
Q21: Which of the following factors was not
Q23: Someone who has an overriding interest is
Q24: Why was there no overreaching in Williams
Q25: Which of the following estates in land
Q26: Which section of the Land Registration Act
Q27: Which section of the Land Registration Act
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents