National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth [1965] AC 1175

Mr Ainsworth was the legal owner of the family home. After leaving his wife, who remained living there with their children, he mortgaged the property to National Provincial Bank. The loan fell into arrears and the bank sought possession. Mrs Ainsworth had made no contribution giving rise to a beneficial interest and had no registered right against the land. She relied instead on the so-called deserted wife's equity, developed in earlier cases as a personal entitlement to remain in the matrimonial home against her husband. The Court of Appeal held that this right could also bind the bank. The House of Lords had to decide whether her position amounted to a proprietary interest enforceable against a third-party mortgagee.

Was a deserted wife's personal right to occupy the matrimonial home a proprietary interest capable of binding the bank when it took its mortgage?

The House of Lords allowed the bank's appeal. Mrs Ainsworth's right against her husband did not amount to an equitable estate or interest in the land and could not bind the mortgagee. Lord Wilberforce explained that a right asserted as property should be definable, identifiable by third parties, capable in its nature of assumption by third parties and possess some degree of permanence or stability. The supposed deserted wife's equity lacked the necessary proprietary quality and depended on personal matrimonial status. It was therefore no defence to the bank's possession claim. The decision did not deny that a spouse might have an actual beneficial interest arising from contributions or another recognised property doctrine; Mrs Ainsworth simply had none on the facts.

A personal licence or status-based right to occupy does not bind purchasers or mortgagees unless it has recognised proprietary status. A proprietary right should be sufficiently definable, identifiable to third parties, capable of assumption by third parties and sufficiently permanent or stable.

Ainsworth sharply distinguishes personal rights from interests in land and remains influential far beyond matrimonial occupation. Parliament responded by creating statutory protection for spouses' home rights, now principally governed by the Family Law Act 1996 and its registration scheme. The case must also be contrasted with Williams & Glyn's Bank v Boland, where a spouse had a genuine beneficial interest under a trust and actual occupation made it overriding. Modern family-home claims may arise through resulting or common-intention constructive trusts, as illustrated by Lloyds Bank v Rosset and later co-ownership cases.