Constructive Notice in UK Law

The hypothesis is that the claimant has established a proprietary interest in the asset, and the question is whether the defendant has established such absence of notice as entitles him to assume that there are no adverse interests. There must be something which the defendant actually knows (or would actually know if he had a reasonable appreciation of the meaning of the information in his hands) which calls for inquiry.

I certainly do not think that the mere fact that a reference to a fact is tucked away in some pleaded document to which the bank was a party should normally, without any express reference to that fact, be capable of being taken as an allegation that the bank had notice of that fact. The purpose of the pleadings is to define the issues and give the other party fair notice of the case which he has to meet. Concealed and referential allegations do not perform this function.

The purpose, in each system, is the same, namely, to safeguard the rights of persons in occupation, but the method used differs. In the case of unregistered land, the purchaser's obligation depends upon what he has notice of—notice actual or constructive. In the case of registered land, it is the fact of occupation that matters. If there is actual occupation, and the occupier has rights, the purchaser takes subject to them.

In relation to the first question, the issue is whether the advice actually given was sufficient to rebut the presumption of undue influence. In relation to the second, the issue is different: it is whether, in the light of the facts known to the bank, including the availability of legal advice, any risk of the wife having an equity reasonably appeared to have been dispelled. The second question depends on how the transaction appeared to the bank.