remedies for purchasers subject to overriding interests

[consistent]

If a purchaser is unaware of the existence of an actual occupation by an implied trust beneficiary, because the sole trustee lies and claims that clothes belong to his auntie rather than the benficiary and then burns them for the next visit, so that the purchaser takes subject to the rights because the trustee lied and didn't admit the trust and the purchaser had no other way of knowing about it after the burning of the clothes which signified occupation, can he at least sue the trustee although breach of trust is actually agianst the beneficiary, or does he have bo remedy?

[fredpuli47]

I don't understand the question. Just list the facts. What property? Whose property is it? Who lived there? Why is there said to be a trust?How is the trustee a trustee, according to you?How is this person a beneficiary?

[consistent]

Sorry, wrote it in a rush.

H, husband of W, holds a house on implied trust (W contributes to purchase price) for both of them but has sole registered title. While W is away, he invites P to view the house with a view to selling without W'S consent or knowledge. P views the house and sees W's clothes, but H claims that these belong to a visiting family member, avoiding mention of W. H then destroys the clothes before P again views the house at the time of disposition, and only a picture of H and W remains as evidence of W.

P buys the property. While the issue is clearly one of actual occupation under LRA 2002, the outcome is not clear because of the need for occupation to be obvious. My question is this: In the event that the court finds occupation (despite the fact this may be unlikely given the aims of the new act), then P will take subject to W's interest and interest to occupy, holding it on trust for her. As P is in this very rare situation entirely blameless due to the considered deception by H, does P have any remedy? My understanding is he can't get rid of W's interest, but can he sue H for misrepresentation, breach of contract or something of that kind?

Cheers!

Consistent.