Bank Notes

  • Home
  • News
  • Administration
  • Agency and Mandate
  • Bonds and Notes
  • Cheques and bills
  • Companies
  • Confidentiality
  • Consumer credit
  • Contract
  • Conversion
  • Data Protection
  • Default and demand
  • Documentary credits
  • Fiduciary duties
  • Financial Services Regulation
  • Fraud and economic torts
  • Guarantees and indemnities
  • Hire and asset finance
  • Injunctions
  • Insurance
  • Joint and vicarious liability
  • Limitation
  • Mistake
  • Money Laundering
  • Negligence and Advisory Liability
  • Partnership
  • Procedure
  • Receivership
  • Security
  • Trust and Accessory Liability
  • Unjust enrichment


The (obiter) comment on the effect of s 26 LRA 2002 in this case and in the case which it followed on this point (Mortgage Express v Lambert, 2017) is surely wrong.  Section 26 is expressed not to apply to any limitation imposed by the LRA.  The rights of persons in actual occupation are protected by s 29(2) and Sch 3.  Section 26 prevents the title of the transferee from being disputed, it does not prevent that title being subject to the priority of rights of persons in actual occupation: see Dixon [2017] LQR Vol 133 pp 173-177.