Williams &amp; Glyn's Bank v BolandWilliams &amp; Glyn's Bank v Boland Williams & Glyn's Bank v Boland Williams & Glyn's Bank v Boland  is a House of Lords judgment in English land and trusts law (family co-ownership) on an occupier's potentially overriding interests in a home. Facts. Michael Boland and his wife Julia Sheila Boland lived on Ridge Park, Beddington, in the London Borough of Croydon. Mr Boland, registered owner of the house, borrowed money from Williams & Glyn's Bank for his building company. Boland failed to repay, and the bank sued for possession. Mrs Boland argued that because she made substantial financial contributions to acquiring the home , she should be able to stay. The bank argued: The lack of registration defence/claim does not work if the party claiming the unregistered right is in actual occupation. Then, that person has an overriding interest. But the bank argued that if she cohabited with her husband, she should not count as being in actual occupation because a bank's (proper) investigation (as it then stood) would not alert it to her having a property right in the land. It would be no surprise to find a shared occupancy of a home. Judgment. High Court. Templeman J at first instance , said that Mrs Boland was not in ‘actual occupation’ within the Act's meaning, because her occupation was merely an accompaniment to her husband's. Therefore, her claim failed. Mrs Boland appealed. Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that Mrs Boland succeeded in her claim. She was in actual occupation under section 70(1)(g) of the Land Registration Act 1925 and that therefore she had an overriding interest in the property. The bank appealed contending that the wife's interest could only be considered a minor interest and that she could not be considered to be "in actual occupation . Lord Denning MR, giving the leading judgment, remarked that spouses had been ‘stripped bare’ by the House of Lord's in National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth". Then in "Gissing v Gissing" it was decided that contributions to the purchase price mean a trust arises. He went on to refute the view of Stamp J in "Caunce v Caunce" and Templeman J at first instance, that a wife could certainly be in ‘actual occupation’ even though her husband owned and occupied the property. The key parts of his judgment were as follows. House of Lords. The House of Lords upheld  the Court of Appeal's decision and thus rejected the bank's application for possession. Mrs Boland's right(s) counted as a property right, and the bank had no defence. Lord Wilberforce held that the words ‘actual occupation’ under section 70(1)(g) of the Land Registration Act 1925 should be interpreted in plain English and did not require anything else but physical presence. The view that a husband's occupation (living there) precluded the wife's was wrong. Ditto a wife's occupation being "a shadow of her husband’s" similarly obsolete. And to say that actual occupation must be inconsistent  with the husband's would be a ‘rewriting of the paragraph’. The rights of a spouse under a trust for sale are capable of recognition, if with difficulty, as overriding interests. He approved Lord Denning MR rejecting that the spouse's right was merely an interest in the proceeds of sale, rather than the house itself for living in it. Lord Wilberforce said among his reasoning: Williams & Glyn's Bank v Boland Williams & Glyn's Bank v Boland  is a House of Lords judgment in English land and trusts law (family co-ownership) on an occupier's potentially overriding