Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

HISTORIOGRAPHY AND THE LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925: THE RETURN OF FRANKENSTEIN

  • Juanita Roche
Abstract

This article considers how problems in legal historiography can lead to real legal problems, through a case-study of two recent judgments which appear to revolutionise the law on overreaching under section 2(1)(ii) of the Law of Property Act 1925. Their reasoning ignored plain wording in the Act, in a way foreshadowed by problems in the historiography of the 1925 property legislation; and the legislative history shows that the version of overreaching they promote, one with a clear political meaning, was rejected by Parliament. One of these decisions has now been reversed on appeal, but on reasoning so untenable as to invite further challenge; and now two Court of Appeal judgments on overreaching contradict, without even mentioning, two prior Court of Appeal decisions and a decision of the House of Lords. The court should reaffirm the law on overreaching, and academics should develop a new historiography.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      HISTORIOGRAPHY AND THE LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925: THE RETURN OF FRANKENSTEIN
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      HISTORIOGRAPHY AND THE LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925: THE RETURN OF FRANKENSTEIN
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      HISTORIOGRAPHY AND THE LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925: THE RETURN OF FRANKENSTEIN
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
Address for Correspondence: School of Law, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. Email: juanita.roche@manchester.ac.uk.
Footnotes
Hide All
*

Lecturer in Property Law, University of Manchester; Fellow, Cambridge Centre for Property Law.

I am grateful to the Parliamentary Archivists for finding a lost Bill, and to Martin Dixon, Hazel Carty, Michael Haley, John Bell and the anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments on earlier drafts. All faults remain my own.

Footnotes
References
Hide All

1 Offer, A., “The Origin of the Law of Property Acts 1910–1925” (1977) 40 M.L.R. 505; and Offer, A., Property and Politics 1870–1914 (Cambridge 1981), the latter covering 1826–1925; Getzler, J., “Publication Review: Property and Politics and Lawyers and the Making of English Land Law” (1993) 109 L.Q.R. 684; Simpson, A.W.B., “J. Stuart Anderson, Lawyers and the Making of English Land Law” (1993) 56 M.L.R. 608.

2 Offer, Property, pp. 2, 84.

3 Simpson, “J. Stuart Anderson”, p. 609; Getzler, “Publication Review”, pp. 684–685.

4 Offer, Property, p. 84.

5 Getzler, “Publication Review”, p. 685; Anderson, J.S., Lawyers and the Making of English Land Law, 1832–1940 (Oxford 1992).

6 Anderson, Lawyers, p. 323.

7 Getzler, “Publication Review”, p. 688; cf. Simpson, “J. Stuart Anderson”.

8 Cornish, W., Anderson, J.S., Cocks, R., Lobban, M., Polden, P., and Smith, K., The Oxford History of the Laws of England (Oxford 2010), vols. XI-XIII.

9 Offer, A. and Söderberg, G., The Nobel Factor: The Prize in Economics, Social Democracy and the Market Turn (Princeton 2016), 1.

10 Lobban, M., “The Politics of English Law in the Nineteenth Century” in Brand, P. and Getzler, J. (eds.), Judges and Judging in the History of the Common Law and Civil Law (Cambridge 2012), 111112.

11 Ibid., at e.g. pp. 111, 123–124.

12 Dicey, A.V., “The Paradox of the Land Law” (1905) 21 L.Q.R. 221, at 226–227, 232.

13 Pugh, M., State and Society: A Social and Political History of Britain since 1970, 4th ed. (London 2012), 127; cf. S. Anderson, “Land Law Texts and the Explanation of 1925” [1984] CLP 63, at 67.

14 E.g. Pugh, M., The Making of Modern British Politics 1867–1939 (Oxford 1982); Clarke, P., Hope and Glory: Britain 1900–2000 (London 2004); Pugh, State; Vernon, J., Modern Britain: 1750 to the Present (Cambridge 2017); cf. Lobban, “The Politics of English Law”, pp. 113–114.

15 Gray, K. and Symes, P., Real Property and Real People (London 1981).

16 Anderson, S., “Explaining Land Law” (1982) 45 M.L.R. 346, at 348–350.

17 Ibid., at pp. 348–350; Gray and Symes, Real Property, pp. 11–13, 16–17.

18 Smith, R., “Elements of Land Law” (1990) 10 O.J.L.S. 260, at 260.

19 Gray, K.J., Elements of Land Law (London 1987), 802; cf. Smith, “Elements of Land Law”, p. 260.

20 E.g. L. Fox O'Mahony, “Property Outsiders and the Hidden Politics of Doctrinalism” [2014] CLP 409, at 420–422; Gardner, S. and MacKenzie, E., An Introduction to Land Law, 4th ed. (London 2015), 201.

21 Cf. Harpum, C., “Overreaching, Trustees’ Powers and the Reform of the 1925 Legislation” (1990) 49 C.L.J. 277, at 277–278.

22 Williams & Glyn's Bank v Boland [1981] A.C. 487; Conaglen, M., “Mortgagee Powers Rhetoric” (2006) 69 M.L.R. 583.

23 Conaglen, “Mortgagee Powers Rhetoric”, p. 592.

24 Ibid., at pp. 590–591; cf. Gray and Symes, Real Property, p. xxx.

25 Conaglen, “Mortgagee Powers Rhetoric”, pp. 583–584.

26 Anderson, S., “The 1925 Property Legislation: Setting Contexts” in Bright, S. and Dewar, J. (eds.), Land Law: Themes and Perspectives (Oxford 1998), 128.

27 Baker v Craggs [2017] 2 W.L.R. 1483.

28 Mortgage Express v Lambert [2017] Ch. 93.

29 See Section IV(B) and note 146 below.

30 Baker v Craggs [2018] 3 W.L.R. 401.

31 See e.g. Bennion, F.A.R., Understanding Common Law Legislation: Drafting and Interpretation (Oxford 2001), 4748; Beswick v Beswick [1968] A.C. 58.

32 Baker [2017] 2 W.L.R. 1483, at [5]–[6]; Farrand, J. and Clarke, A., “Cited but Not Read?” (2017) 80 E.F.T.B. 1, at 3.

33 Baker [2017] 2 W.L.R. 1483, at [7]–[8].

34 Ibid., at para. [10(i)].

35 Ibid., at para. [23].

36 Ibid., at para. [27].

37 Ibid., at paras. [31]–[32].

38 Ibid., at paras. [34], [45].

39 Baker [2018] 3 W.L.R. 401, at [21].

40 M. Dixon, “The Registration Gap and Overreaching” [2017] Conv. 1, at 3–4; G. Owen, “Priorities and Registered Land During the Registration Gap” [2017] Conv. 230.

41 Baker [2018] 3 W.L.R. 401, at [24]–[27].

42 Ibid., at para. [27].

43 Ibid., at para. [27].

44 Ibid., at paras. [27]–[28].

45 Ibid., at para. [29].

46 Ibid., at para. [31].

47 Ibid., at para. [3].

48 Ibid., at para. [32].

49 State Bank of India v Sood [1997] Ch 276.

50 Baker [2018] 3 W.L.R. 401, 402D.

51 Sood [1997] Ch 276, 281D, [1997] 1 W.L.R. 1568.

52 Offer, Property; Anderson, Lawyers; Cornish et al., The Oxford History of the Laws of England, vol. XII, Part I, chs. II, V.

53 “Fourth Report of the Acquisition and Valuation of Land Committee on the Transfer of Land in England and Wales”, Cmd 424, (1919) HCP xxix 89; Landon, P.A., “Scott, Sir Leslie Frederic (1869–1950)”, rev. Brodie, M., Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, online ed. 2008); HC Deb. vol. 155 col. 709 (16 June 1922).

54 Fourth Report, p. 21.

55 Ibid., at pp. 12, 35, 37.

56 Ibid., at p. 11.

57 (1920) HLP v 323.

58 Johnson, J., “Bibliography of the New Property Acts (Annotated), 1896–1925” (1926) 42 L.Q.R. 67, at 80, cf. 70–71.

59 Landon, “Scott”; Campbell, J., “Smith, Frederick Edwin, First Earl of Birkenhead (1872–1930)”, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, online ed. 2015).

60 (1920) HLP v 323, i.

61 HL Deb. vol. 39 cols. 254 and 256 (3 March 1920).

62 HL Deb. vol. 39 col. 258 (3 March 1920); cf. Anderson, Lawyers, pp. 291–292.

63 Legg, T.S. and Legg, M.-L., “Cave, George, Viscount Cave (1856–1928)”, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, online ed. 2011); HL Deb. vol. 39 cols. 270–271 (3 March 1920).

64 HL Deb. vol. 39 cols. 271–272 (3 March 1920).

65 HL Deb. vol. 39 cols. 264–267 and 275 (3 March 1920).

66 HL Deb. vol. 39 col. 280 (3 March 1920); “Report and Proceedings of the Joint Select Committee on the Law of Property Bill (H.L.)”, Parliamentary Papers (1920) vol. VII: 529 (131), 3 para. 2.

67 HL Deb. vol. 41 cols. 486–487 (26 July 1920); cf. Anderson, Lawyers, pp. 297–298.

68 HL Deb. vol. 41 cols. 491–529 (26 July 1920).

69 Parliamentary Archives, HL/PO/JO/10/10/666/161, 3.

70 Underhill, A., “Lord Birkenhead's Law of Property Bill” (1920) 36 L.Q.R. 107, at 109.

71 Johnson, “Bibliography”, p. 71; (1921) HCP ii 101 (134), 1–2.

72 (1922) HCP ii 1 (83) and 359 (145).

73 Law of Property Bill 1921, iii; Law of Property Bill 1922 (83), xxv.

74 HC Deb. vol. 154 cols. 94–95 (15 May 1922).

75 HC Deb. vol. 154 cols. 89–90 (15 May 1922).

76 HC Deb. vol. 154 cols. 129–130 (15 May 1922); A.G.M. Hesilrige (ed.), Debrett's House of Commons and the Judicial Bench (London 1922), 21.

77 HC Deb. vol. 154 cols. 151–152 (15 May 1922); Paradise Lost, Book 2, lines 404–405.

78 HC Deb. vol. 154 cols. 164–165 (15 May 1922).

79 HC Deb. vol. 154 cols. 174–175 (15 May 1922).

80 HC Deb. vol. 155 cols. 383–463 (14 June 1922).

81 HC Deb. vol. 155 cols. 712–714 (16 June 1922).

82 Anon, “Passing the Law of Property Bill” (1922) 57 L.J. 215, at 216.

83 See e.g. Clarke, Hope and Glory, ch. 4.

84 Holdsworth, W.S., “The Reform of the Land Law: An Historical Retrospect” (1926) 42 L.Q.R. 158, 158; Anon, “Passing”, p. 215.

85 HC Deb. vol. 179 col. 498 (12 December 1924); “Report of the Committee on the Law of Property Consolidation Bills” (“Romer Report”), Cmd 2271, (1924) HCP xi 363; Legg and Legg, “Cave”.

86 Matthew, H.C.G., “Haldane, Richard Burdon, Viscount Haldane (1856–1928)”, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, online ed. 2011).

87 Romer Report, pp. 2–4.

88 Postponement Bill: HL Deb. vol. 58 col. 540 (15 July 1924), HC Deb. vol. 176 cols. 1547W (24 July 1924) and 1898 (29 July 1924); amending and consolidation Bills, HL Deb. vol. 59 cols. 124–125 (31 July 1924).

89 HC Deb. vol. 179 col. 1265 (18 December 1924).

90 HC Deb. vol. 179 cols. 1281 and 1294 (18 December 1924).

91 Topham, A., The Law of Property Acts 1925 (London 1926), 43.

92 HL Deb. vol. 60 col. 206 (11 February 1925).

93 Beswick [1968] A.C. 58, 73E; P. Sparkes, “The 1925 Property Legislation: Curtaining Off the Antecedents” [1988] S.L.R. 146, at 146–149.

94 E.g. HC Deb. vol. 182 cols. 1988 (6 April 1925) and 2115 (7 April 1925); Johnson, “Bibliography”, p. 71.

95 Joint Select Committee Report on the Consolidation Bills (1925) HCP vii 111, 11–12 and 39–40.

96 Ibid., at p. 49.

97 E.g. Holdsworth, “The Reform”, p. 180.

98 See e.g. Johnson, “Bibliography”, pp. 76–78.

99 “H.A.H.” (Hollond, H.A.), “Wolstenholme and Cherry's Conveyancing Statutes. Twelfth Edition” (1933) 5 C.L.J. 145, at 145; cf. Beswick [1968] A.C. 58, 93D, 105C.

100 Cf. G.C. Cheshire, “The Recent Property Legislation in England” [1926] U.Penn.L.R. 767, at 767.

101 HL Deb. vol. 60 col. 208 (11 February 1925).

102 HL Deb. vol. 63 col. 575 (16 March 1926); HL Deb. vol. 64 col. 357 (10 June 1926).

103 Cf. s. 11, instruments “creating a legal estate or charge by way of legal mortgage”.

104 Although it was included in counsels’ skeleton arguments on appeal: Baker [2018] 3 W.L.R. 401, 402D.

105 Lambert [2017] Ch. 93, at [1], [3], [9].

106 Ibid., at paras. [2], [4], [6]–[7].

107 Ibid., at p. 95A–B.

108 Ibid., at p. 95B, paras. [9], [11].

109 Ibid., at paras. [16]–[20], [23]–[24].

110 Dixon, M., “Priority, Overreaching and Surprises under the Land Registration Act 2002” (2017) 133 L.Q.R. 173.

111 Lambert [2017] Ch. 93, at para. [32].

112 Birmingham Midshires v Sabherwal (2000) 80 P & CR 256; Lambert [2017] Ch. 93, at paras. [34]–[36].

113 Sabherwal (2000) 80 P & CR 256, at [24].

114 Sommer v Sweet [2005] EWCA Civ 227.

115 Sommer [2005] EWCA Civ 227, at [25]–[28]; cf. Harpum, C., Dixon, M. and Bridge, S., Megarry and Wade: The Law of Real Property, 8th ed. (London 2012), at [6-054], fn 173.

116 Lambert [2017] Ch. 93, 94C–H.

117 Ibid., at para. [37].

118 The exception is Televantos, A., “Unconscionable Bargains, Overreaching and Overriding Interests” (2016) 75 C.L.J. 458, at 459, which however does not proceed to the crucial question.

119 Harpum, “Overreaching”; Fox, D., “Overreaching” in Birks, P. and Pretto, A. (eds.), Breach of Trust (Oxford 2002); Nolan, R., “The Administration and Maladministration of Funds in Equity” in Turner, P. (ed.), Equity and Administration (Cambridge 2016), 7479.

120 Nolan, “The Administration”, p. 77.

121 See e.g. Joint Select Committee (1925), pp. 12–13.

122 E.g. Preston, R., An Elementary Treatise on Estates, vol. 1 (London 1820), 158.

123 Megarry & Wade at [25-013] and [25-020]; Cornish et al., The Oxford History of the Laws of England, vol. XII, pp. 135–138.

124 Cornish et al., The Oxford History of the Laws of England, vol. XII, pp. 137–139.

125 See e.g. Horne, R. Cozens-Hardy, Lewin's Practical Treatise on the Law of Trusts, 15th ed. (London 1950), 520521.

126 Cornish et al., The Oxford History of the Laws of England, vol. XII, pp. 79–94.

127 Megarry & Wade at [10-006]; cf. In re Carne's Settled Estates [1899] 1 Ch. 324, 330.

128 In re Duke of Marlborough's Settlement (1885) 30 Ch. D. 127, 131; J. Johnson, “The Reform of Real Property Law in England” [1925] Colum.L.Rev. 609, at 611.

129 (1920) HLP v 323, i.

130 Anon, The Report of the Land Transfer Committee” (1919–20) 64 Sol J 252, 253.

131 Parliamentary Archives, HL/PO/JO/10/10/666/161, 6.

132 Anderson, Lawyers, p. 297.

133 Law of Property Bill (1920) HLP v 323, Clause 3(6).

134 Ibid., at pp. i, 175; Anderson, Lawyers, p. 292.

135 E.g. HL Deb. vol. 39 cols. 264–265, 271–272, 275 (3 March 1920); HL Deb. vol. 41 cols. 486–487, 490–491 (26 July 1920); Lightwood, J., “Trusts for Sale” (1927–1929) 3 C.L.J. 59, at 68.

136 Anon, “The Law of Property Acts” (1925) 60 L.J. 461.

137 Law of Property Bill 1921, Clauses 3(4) and 11, Sch. 4, para. 3.

138 Law of Property Bill 1922 (Bill 83): Memorandum at i–iii, Clause 3(2)–(3).

139 See e.g. Law of Property (Amendment) Bill (1924) HCP ii 561, covering page; Harvey, E., The Law of Property Act 1922: How Will It Work? (London 1923), 1539; “J.M.L.” (Lightwood, J.), “The Curtain Clause” (1925) 60 L.J. 112, at 113.

140 Sch. 3, Part II, para. 1 of the Bill and the Act.

141 Anon, “The Law of Property Bills” (1924) 69 Sol J. & Wkly Rep 119, 119–120.

142 Cheshire, “Recent”, p. 776. Cf. Cheshire, G., The Modern Law of Real Property (London 1925), 8283; Lightwood, “Curtain”; Johnson, “Reform”; Banks, W., Lewin's Practical Treatise on the Law of Trusts, 13th ed. (London 1928), 1100; Cherry, B., Parry, D. Hughes, and Maxwell, J. R. P.. (eds), Wolstenholme and Cherry's Conveyancing Statutes, 12th ed. (London 1932), 232.

143 Fox, “Overreaching”, p. 95, fn 1.

144 Anon, “Bills”, p. 120; Cheshire, Modern, p. 83; Johnson, “Reform”, p. 624.

145 LPA 1925, s. 205(1)(xxviii).

146 Anon, “Bills”, p. 120, emphasis in original.

147 Cf. Lightwood, “Trusts”, pp. 68–69.

148 Cf. Sabherwal (2000) 80 P & CR 256, at [22]; M. Dixon, “Overreaching and the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996” [2000] Conv. 267.

149 For what follows, see “J.M.L.” (Lightwood, J.), “Making Title” (1925) 60 L.J. 748, at 748–749.

150 In the form of a waiver, this remains the usual practice: Megarry & Wade at [13-105] and fn 604.

151 E.g. Lightwood, “Making”, 749; Megarry & Wade at [12-037], fn 17. Cf. Lewis, M., “Statutory Trusts For Sale” (1940) 56 L.Q.R. 255, at 257; “A.D.H.”, “Reviews: A Manual of the Law of Real Property” (1947) 1 J.S.P.T.L. 57, at 58.

152 “H.A.H.” (Hollond, H.A.), “Book Reviews: Williams’ Principles of the Law of Real Property” (1926) 2 C.L.J. 413, at 413–414.

153 Cf. Barton, J.L., “The Authorship of Bracton: Again” (2009) 30 J.L.H. 117, at 127.

154 In re Ryder and Steadman's Contract [1927] 2 Ch. 62.

155 Ibid., at p. 84; cf. the anonymous case note (1927) 43 L.Q.R. 441, at 441–442.

156 Shiloh Spinners Ltd. v Harding [1973] A.C. 691.

157 Ibid., at p. 721B–C, cf. 719C–721G.

158 City of London Building Society v Flegg [1988] A.C. 54.

159 Ibid., at pp. 63G–64A, 83D–E, 86H–91B.

160 Law Commission Working Paper 106, Trusts of Land: Overreaching (1988), iv.

161 Sabherwal (2000) 80 P & CR 256, at [25]–[31].

162 Cf. Hopkins, N., “The Relevance of Context in Property Law: A Case for Judicial Restraint?” (2011) 31 L.S. 175.

163 Sweet v Sommer [2004] EWHC 1504 (Ch).

164 Sommer [2005] EWCA Civ 227, at [18] and [26].

165 Banwaitt v Dewji [2015] EWHC 3441 (Ch).

166 Ibid., at para. [22].

167 One footnote mentions “an ad hoc trust” – Megarry & Wade, at [12-037], fn 317 – but few 21st-century readers will know that this phrase was used in the 20th century to mean a trust complying with s. 2(2): see e.g. Anon, “The Law of Property Acts” (1925) 60 L.J. 461; and Shiloh [1973] A.C. 691, 698F, 715A.

168 As indicated above, it is strongly arguable that the Court of Appeal judgments in both Lambert and Craggs were per incuriam.

169 See Bell, J. and Engle, G. (eds.), Cross: Statutory Interpretation, 3rd ed. (Oxford 1995), 5152; and Bennion, F.A.R. and Jones, O., Bennion on Statutory Interpretation, 6th ed. (London 2013), 797 (s. 288).

170 Modern interest in the doctrine that “statute is always speaking” was triggered by R. v Ireland [1998] A.C. 147, in which the House of Lords resorted to “updating” on the basis of sheer assertion about the past; had they considered historical work and evidence, “updating” would not have been necessary.

171 A useful short survey is contained in Beatson, J., “Legal Academics: Forgotten Players or Interlopers?” in Burrows, A., Johnstone, D., and Zimmermann, R. (eds.), Judge and Jurist: Essays in Memory of Lord Rodger of Earlsferry (Oxford 2013), 523542.

172 E.g. Swain, W., The Law of Contract 1670–1870 (Cambridge 2015); Mitchell, P., A History of Tort Law 1900–1950 (Cambridge 2015); the latter is remarkable for such a late end-date.

173 See e.g. Abel, R., The Legal Profession in England and Wales (Oxford 1988), 48, 144; Twining, W., Blackstone's Tower: The English Law School (London 1994); Cownie, F. and Bradney, A., “An Examined Life: Research into University Legal Education in the United Kingdom and the Journal of Law and Society” (2017) 44 Journal of Law and Society S129; Dixon, M., “A Doctrinal Approach to Property Law Scholarship: Who Cares and Why?” in Bright, S. and Blandy, S. (eds.), Researching Property Law (London 2016), 110.

174 As feared by at least two eminent academic judges: see Beatson, “Legal Academics”, pp. 537–542; and H. McQueen, “Alan Ferguson Rodger (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry) 1944–2011” [2016] Jur.Rev. 255, at 286.

175 Cf. Allan, T.R.S., “Principle, Practice, and Precedent: Vindicating Justice, According To Law” (2018) 77 C.L.J. 269.

* Lecturer in Property Law, University of Manchester; Fellow, Cambridge Centre for Property Law.

I am grateful to the Parliamentary Archivists for finding a lost Bill, and to Martin Dixon, Hazel Carty, Michael Haley, John Bell and the anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments on earlier drafts. All faults remain my own.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

The Cambridge Law Journal
  • ISSN: 0008-1973
  • EISSN: 1469-2139
  • URL: /core/journals/cambridge-law-journal
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed