Legal Case Summary
Peffer v Rigg [1977] 1 WLR 285
Whether notice of an unprotected interest binds a purchaser.
Facts
The plaintiff, Peffer, and his brother, Rigg, purchased a property that was registered in Rigg’s sole name but was actually held on trust for them both. They both contributed to the purchase price in equal shares. No restriction was placed on the register regarding Peffer’s equitable interest. Later, Rigg transferred the entire legal estate to his wife, the defendant, for a nominal consideration of £1.
Issues
The defendants argued that they had not acted in breach of trust. They relied on s.20(1) Land Registration Act 1925 which says that a disposition of registered land for valuable consideration confers upon the transferee an estate subject to any incumbrances appearing on the register and any overriding interests affecting the estate which are not on the register. As Mrs Rigg had purchased the property for £1, this was valuable consideration and she should not be bound by Peffer’s unprotected minor interest.
Decision / Outcome
Mrs Rigg held the property on constructive trust for herself and Peffer. Graham J stated that while a purchaser for valuable consideration takes the land free of any incumbrances other than those registered or overriding interest, if the purchaser did not provide valuable consideration s.20(4) of the 1925 Act stated that any disposition would be subject to any minor interests, subject to which the transferor or grantor held the land even if not registered. In any case Mrs Rigg knew of the plaintiff’s equitable interest when she bought the property. According to equitable principles, this meant she was bound by that interest as a constructive trustee, even though it was not protected by an entry on the register.
Updated 21 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the facts and decision in Peffer v Rigg [1977] 1 WLR 285. Readers should be aware of two important points of context.
First, the Land Registration Act 1925, upon which the case turned, has been repealed and replaced by the Land Registration Act 2002. The 2002 Act abolished the old categories of minor interests and overriding interests in their previous form and introduced a revised framework of registered dispositions, overriding interests, and protected interests. The specific provisions cited in the article (s.20(1) and s.20(4) LRA 1925) no longer exist in that form.
Second, and more significantly, the reasoning in Peffer v Rigg — particularly the suggestion that mere knowledge of an unprotected interest could itself bind a purchaser as a constructive trustee — has been treated with considerable scepticism in later academic commentary and has not been followed as a reliable general principle. The better view, consistent with the 2002 Act’s scheme, is that the 2002 Act provides a largely exhaustive framework for priority of interests in registered land, and that personal knowledge of an unprotected interest does not in itself defeat a registered disposition for valuable consideration. The case therefore retains historical interest but should not be read as a reliable statement of the current law. Students should consider it primarily as an illustration of older registered land principles and judicial reasoning, and should engage with the 2002 Act framework when addressing modern priority questions.
