The decision of the House of Lords in City of London Building Society v Flegg marks a key step in how the balance is struck between occupiers and creditors in priority disputes ; the seeds of which were originally planted in the Property Law Act of 1925. It posed a serious challenge to the conventional understanding of overbreadth and the mechanisms of transfer of property. Ref? The importance of social context in land law and the reforms that took place as a result cannot be ignored nor their importance underestimated. In particular, the impact of the transition in the 20th century to "the emergence of land ownership, in particular real estate property mortgaged by a building society-democracy owner". Such growth could hardly have been anticipated when the LPA 1925 was drafted and subsequently became law. As a result of this growth, the doctrine of the resulting trust, and to a greater extent the constructive trust, became a robust mechanism by which non-legal owners could establish beneficial interests in the home. Swadling comments on the “complete change in attitude” between the emphasis on security of home ownership in Boland and the free commercialization of land that we see in Flegg. He said: “one wonders what has happened to the demands of social justice which justified their Lordship's decision in 1980 (in the Boland case) in such a short time”. Did the House of Lords fail to resolve the very practical question before it and which had evolved as social changes were enacted since the 1925 legislation was drafted? One of the main objectives of the 1925 LPA was to achieve a "compromise between the interests of the public in ensuring that trust lands are freely tradable and, on the other hand...... middle of paper ......o the purchaser of unregistered land if the provision is ultra vires, assuming there is no actual notice of this, then excesses may take place. This has now evolved to no requirement for no notice. Furthermore, section 70(1)(g) of the LRA 1925 protects as a predominant interest the property rights of those actually occupying the land, as described by Lord Denning MR: Fundamentally, its object is to protect a person who actually occupies the land. to see one's rights lost in the whirlwind of registration. He can stand there and do nothing. Yet he will be protected. No one can buy the land above their head and thus take away or diminish their rights. It is up to each buyer to find out on site before purchasing. If he does not do so, it is at his own risk. He must take subject to the rights available to the occupant.