Facts: This is a case in which the holder of an easement did claim to be in actual occupation of the burdened land

Held: This claim was dismissed. It was held that use of the burdened land does not equate to occupation of it – this seems obvious and simple

Held: It is generally accepted that the registered proprietor has valid title to the estate regardless e.g. regardless of fraud. However, in this case it was held by a High Court judge that fraudulent registration does not confer title. This runs counter to the logical implications of s.58 LRA 2002 and has been criticised (e.g. by Dixon)

Facts: The Court of Appeal had to determine whether Bustard was in actual occupation of residential property at a time when she had been physically absent from the property (because she has been sectioned under the Mental Health Act) for a year

Held: Mummer LJ constructed a framework for assessing actual occupation, under which he held the following to be relevant: “…the degree of permanence and continuity of presence of the person concerned, the intentions and wishes of that person, the length of absence from the property and the reason for it and the nature of the property and personal circumstances of the person…”. The Court of Appeal held Bustard was in actual occupation because of her continued intention to return home → this is NOT obiter! This case has been applied in subsequent cases e.g. Thomas v Clydesdale Bank [2010]

Facts: A husband and wife recently married and decided to purchase a house that was semi-derilict. The property was registered in the sole name of the husband. The could not move in until renovation work had been done and much of it was supervised by the wife. The question was, could the wife be in actual occupation when she was not in permanent occupation? I.e. could she use the builder's (agent's) occupation and count that as her own occupation?

Held: In this case there was one dissenting judgment by the court did decided that this is fine: you can count on the occupation of your agent as your occupation and thereby prove that you are a person in actual occupation of the burdened land and protect your interests over that land (Nicholls LJ + Puchas LJ)

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 their absence they have a continuing intention to occupy the property. Lewison J therefore held that Mrs Thompson was not in actual occupation: but, had there been a continuing intention to occupy, Lewison J would have reached the opposite conclusion

⇒ NOTE: this was a High Court judgement and strictly obiter so may not be taken seriously by the court of appeal and House of Lords. Furthermore, the case did not mention the circumstances where to perosn is absent for a long time. These issues were partly dealt with in the case of Link Lending v Bustard

Facts: A man held the legal freehold and the wife had the beneficial interest under trust. The husband mortgaged the land to the bank. The question for the court was whether or not the wife's interest took priority over the mortgage (i.e. did the wife's interest bind the bank)? Because, if it did, that would impact the bank's ability to possess the land and sell it to recoup the debts

Held: She did have an interest (beneficial interest under trust) and Lord Wilberforce concluded she was in actual occupation as she had a "physical presence" → so the bank could not possess the house!