The defendants had charged a property to the claimant bank to secure a guarantee of borrowings. The signatures were not witnessed as required under section 1(3) of the 1989 Act, and there were other misdescriptions. The bank sought a declaration as to the validity of the charge, and now applied for summary judgment.
Held: Applying section 1(3) of the 1989 Act, the charge was ineffective to convey a legal estate. Nevertheless registration had been completed, and the bank was able to rely on section 51 of the 2002 Act to give it effect.
The trustees were not estopped from relying on the invalidity of the charge (Briggs v Gleeds applied).
The sums were dueto te bank. The Trustees were not estopped from relying upon the failure to have te execution of the deed witnessed, but, having been registered, the Bank was entitled to rely on the Registration to have an equitable charge.
 EWHC 2117 (Ch)
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 1(3), Law of Property Act 1925 52, Land Registration Act 2002 51
England and Wales
Distinguished – Shah v Shah CA 10-Apr-2001
The court was asked as to the enforceability of a document under the terms of which the defendants were to make a payment of pounds 1.5 million to the claimant. The document was described as a deed and provided for each defendant to sign in the . .
Applied – Briggs and Others v Gleeds (Head Office) and Others ChD 15-Apr-2014
The court was asked whether certain documents constituting a pension scheme had been effectively executed. They had been signed, but the signatures lacked the necessary witnessing. The scheme members claimed estoppel against the signatories.
Registered Land, Land, Estoppel
Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535162