128. On 5 April 2007, there is no doubt that Mrs Thompson was in actual occupation. But there is a subsidiary question: in actual occupation of what? This question arises because if Mrs Thompson was in actual occupation, her rights are protected only so far as relating to land of which she was in actual occupation.
Thompson signed a family arrangement deed as well as a gift deed. Eventually, Thompson decided to stay in England and buy another house there. Foy received the mortgage but falsely claimed that the agreed £200,000 should not be paid due to inheritance tax concerns. Instead, Foy offered to pay Thompson £60,000 then and the balance over several …
Thompson v Foy [2010] Facts. Mrs Thompson’s daughter, Mrs Foy , built an extension on to Mrs Thompson ’s house, then agreed that her daughter would ‘buy her out’, purchasing the estate from her. Prior the finalisation of the agreement, Foy purported to mortgage the property to a bank, claiming that she was the owner.
10/26/2020 · Abbey National v Cann was not only upheld, but expanded, in Thompson v Foy. Here, Lewison LJ introduced the ‘continuing intention to occupy’ element. The court held that Mrs Thompson’s lacking intention to return home was the reason for there being no actual occupation. This paints a picture of the gradual expansion of the term.
THOMPSON V FOY [2009] EWHC 1076 Held: Lewison J was tasked with determining whether Mrs Thompson was in “ actual occupation ” of Valley View (residential property) at a time when she was not physically present at property. He suggested (as one of his points) that an individual can be in actual occupation of a property despite their physical absence provided that during.
Thompson v Foy [2009] EWHC 1076 (Ch) (20 May 2009) is an English land law case concerning the right of a person with an overriding interest in a home and deals with a family arrangement for a house to be a gift transferring from a mother to a daughter and the trust between the two parties that the daughter would pay the mother her sum to buy out her share of the property.
Thompson v Foy [2010] 1 P & CR 16 High Court Issues: Actual occupation priority under Land Registration Act 2002 undue influence and proprietary estoppel Facts: The owner of property Mrs Thompson, transferred the title to her daughter Mrs Foy so her daughter could raise money on a mortgage. At the time of the
