翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ City of Liverpool ・ City of Liverpool (New South Wales) ・ City of Liverpool College ・ City of Liverpool Gymnastics Club ・ City of Logan ・ City of Lompoc Transit ・ City of London ・ City of London (disambiguation) ・ City of London (elections to the Parliament of England) ・ City of London (UK Parliament constituency) ・ City of London Academy ・ City of London Academy, Islington ・ City of London Academy, Southwark ・ City of London and Westminster South by-election, 1977 ・ City of London Artillery ・ City of London Building Society v Flegg ・ City of London by-election, 1868 ・ City of London by-election, 1869 ・ City of London by-election, 1904 ・ City of London by-election, 1906 ・ City of London by-election, 1922 ・ City of London by-election, 1924 ・ City of London by-election, 1935 ・ City of London by-election, 1938 ・ City of London by-election, 1940 ・ City of London by-election, 1945 ・ City of London by-election, February 1906 ・ City of London by-election, June 1906 ・ City of London Cemetery and Crematorium ・ City of London Choir Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク City of London Building Society v Flegg ： ウィキペディア英語版 City of London Building Society v Flegg ''City of London Building Society v Flegg'' () (UKHL 6 ) is an English land law case decided in the House of Lords on the priority given to overriding interests and overreaching interests. The case was controversial because it construed the statutory framework so that interests which were previously thought always to override could be overreached.〔It was submitted, and thought in academic work, in ''Williams & Glyn's Bank v Boland'' () Ch 312, 320 that overriding interests could not be overreached. As it was submitted, Overreaching is dealt with in ''Snell's Principles of Equity'', 27th ed. (1973), pp. 60-62. If the wives' rights are overriding interests they will survive a sale by the two trustees.〕 More recently it has been questioned whether the overreaching rules, as interpreted by ''Flegg'', violate the right to peaceful enjoyment of one's possessions or the right to a family life and home under the European Convention on Human Rights.〔e.g. ''National Westminster Bank Plc v Malhan'' () EWHC 847, () and ()〕 ==Facts== In 1977, Mr and Mrs Flegg sold their home of 28 years and used the £18,000 they made to help buy a property named "Bleak House", at 256 Grange Road, Gillingham, Kent, registered at HM Land Registry title number K467866. Their daughter and her husband, Mrs and Mr Maxwell-Brown had asked them to, and they put in the remaining £16,000 by taking out a mortgage. It was meant for them all to live in, but the daughter and husband registered as the owners, despite their solicitor advising all four of them be registered. Thus, Mr and Mrs Flegg had an equitable property right from their contributions to the purchase price, the Maxwell-Browns holding on trust for them. The Maxwell-Browns had money trouble and remortgaged with the City of London Building Society to raise £37,500 without the Fleggs' consent. The Fleggs were suspicious and entered a caution against dealings at the Land Registry. They defaulted and the building society sought possession. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「City of London Building Society v Flegg」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.