Guy v Barclays Bank Plc: CA 8 Dec 2010

References: [2010] EWCA Civ 1396
Links: Bailii
Coram: Lord Neuberger MR, Patten, Black LLJ
Ratio: 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 voidable, not void. He sought to bring a new action.
Held: The application did not fall with Taylor v Lawrence, and must fail.
Lord Neuberger MR did not consider the merits, but said: ‘It . . seems clear that Lloyd LJ’s analysis proceeded on the basis that the alleged ‘mistake’ for the purposes of para 2(1) of schedule 4 to the 2002 Act was the registration of the Charge in the charges registers. However, there are other ways of putting Mr Guy’s case, namely (a) that the removal of his name from the proprietorship register was a mistake, and, in order to correct that mistake, the Charge would have to be removed from the charges register, or (b) that the registration of the Charge flowed from the mistake of registering the Transfer, and therefore should be treated as part and parcel of that mistake.’
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • See Also – Barclays Bank Plc v Guy ChD (Bailii, [2008] EWHC 893 (Ch))
    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 . .
  • See Also – Barclays Bank Plc v Guy CA (Bailii, [2008] EWCA Civ 452)
    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 . .
  • Cited – Taylor v Lawrence CA (Times 04-Feb-02, Bailii, Gazette 21-Mar-02, [2002] EWCA Civ 90, [2002] 2 All ER 353, [2002] 3 WLR 640, [2003] QB 528)
    A party sought to re-open a judgment on the Court of Appeal after it had been perfected. A case had been tried before a judge. One party had asked for a different judge to be appointed, after the judge disclosed that he had been a client of the firm . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Gold Harp Properties Ltd v Macleod and Others CA (Bailii, [2014] EWCA Civ 1084, [2014] WLR(D) 345, WLRD)
    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 . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 05 November 2019
Ref: 426903