Sharp v Thomson 1997 SC(HL) 66 is a United Kingdom House of Lords decision regarding the status of an unrecorded disposition in Scots Property Law.
[1] Sharp raised an action before the Court of Session contesting that, since the disposition hadn't been registered, the ownership of the house remained with Albyn at the time of attachment and that it and the purchase price was available to the Bank as holder of the charge.
In giving the leading opinion, The Lord President (Hope) drew on historical sources to argue that Scotland has, and has always had, a unitary system of property law and that ownership could only lie with the holder of the recorded title.
The case caused great confusion in Scottish Conveyancers and academics who saw it as over-turning the long established Scots law principle that ownership could not be divided.
However, the effect of the case was greatly reduced by the House of Lords in 2004 in Burnett's Trustee v Grainger [2004] UKHL 8 where the Court held that Sharp v Thomson was authority only for holders of floating charges.