Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

Habermann v Koehler and another [2000]

323 words (1 pages) Case Summary

30th Dec 2020 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

Habermann v Koehler and another [2000] All ER (D) 1739



The appellants had been permitted to occupy a home owner’s property, and had been given an informal option to later buy it. The option was not registered in the Land Register. The home owner later obtained a mortgage on the property and sold it to the mortgagee when they were unable to pay back the debt. Before the conveyance (but after the grant of the mortgage) the mortgagee asked the respondent as to whether the occupiers intended to buy the property, and the home-owner neglected to tell them of the informal option. The appellants attempted to enforce their option against the mortgagee.


Normally, unless an interest is contained in the Land Register, it will not bind successors-in-title to the land. There are some exceptions to this rule, such as proprietary estoppel, overriding interests and constructive trusts.

The appellants in this case argued that their informal, unregistered option was an overriding interest. If it were, the mortgagee would be bound by it unless he made sufficient inquiries which could have discovered it, but did not. The issue was whether the option was capable of being an overriding interest, and whether the mortgagee was bound by it – in particular, whether his inquiries were sufficient and at what stage they should have been made.


The Court of Appeal held against the appellants.

The court held that while an informal option is capable of being an overriding interest, the mortgagee had made sufficient inquiries into the occupiers. The relevant time for making those inquiries was held to be prior to the purchase, and not prior to the grant of the mortgage. The mortgagee therefore took the land free of the option.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "UK Law"

UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas.

Related Articles