The defendant owned development land in Manchester. Under a transfer apparently signed by him the land came to be registered in the name of a company called Ten Acre Ltd, creating a charge in favour of Barclays Bank, which was duly registered on the Charges Register. Ten Acre became insolvent and the bank sought to execute its charge and sell the land. Mr Guy alleged that the transfer to Ten Acre was a forgery and that he was accordingly entitled to have the Register rectified to have the bank’s charge removed. The bank now sought a declaration that its charge was effective, and that it was free to sell the property.
Held: Summary judgment was granted to the bank. The defence that the charge was not effective was based upon allegations which in law did not raise an arguable case of forgery, but only of fraudulent misrepresentation, with the result that the transfer to Ten Acre was at most voidable and not void.
Terence Mowschenson QC
[2008] EWHC 893 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Barclays Bank Plc v Guy CA 9-Apr-2008
The bank had sought and obtained an order recognising the vaidity of its charge over the land. The land had belonged to the defendant, but he said that the property had been registered by a fraudulen ttransfer, and charged by the transferee in the . .
See Also – Guy v Barclays Bank Plc CA 8-Dec-2010
In an earlier action the claimant said that he had been defraused of land by a forged transfer. The transfereee had charged the land to the respondent bank who in that action gained a decision that its charge was effective, the transfer being . .
Cited – Gold Harp Properties Ltd v Macleod and Others CA 29-Jul-2014
The company appealed against an order re-instating to the register leases which the company said it had forfeited for non-payment of rent. After the forfeiture, the landlord had granted new leases. It appealed saying that exceptional circumstances . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Registered Land
Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.267361
