The claimant appealed against cancellation of his application for a restriction against the defendant’s registered title. The adjudicator had found that the claimant’s assertion of an interest in the land was a fiction.
Held: The appeal failed. The adjudicator’s task was not limited as suggested. Briggs J said: ‘what has to be referred to the Adjudicator under section 73(7), where an objection which is not obviously groundless cannot be disposed of by agreement, is not merely the question whether the applicant has a relevant right or claim, but the additional question whether the entry of a restriction is necessary or desirable for the purpose of protecting that right or claim. Both of those questions fall within what is described in section 73(7) as ‘the matter’ to be referred to the Adjudicator.’ Accordingly it was not open to the claimant to insist that the adjudicator should have limited his enquiry as she suggested. However the documents did suggest a mvement of funds of the sort alleged, but the adjudicator’s infelicity in describing this did not undermine his conclusion.
In view of the fact that the case pleaded by each party suggested serious criminal conduct on their own part, the judge requested submissions as to why the matters should not be referred to the CPS for investigation.
Briggs J
[2010] EWHC 265 (Ch), Times 09-Apr-2010, [2010] 16 EG 108, [2010] NPC 20, [2010] 8 EG 105, [2010] 1 WLR 2106
Bailii
Land Registration Act 2002 42(1)(c), Land Registration Rules 2003 (SI 2003 No 1417) 93
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – The Republic of Croatia v The Republic Of Serbia ChD 2-Jul-2009
A person may have a sufficient interest in the making of an entry to enable him (or it) to apply for the entry of a restriction within the meaning of section 43(1)(c) of the Act, on the basis of a claim to an interest in the registered estate, even . .
At LRA – Jayasinghe v Liyanage LRA 18-Feb-2010
Practice and Procedure : Scope of Jurisdiction – Dispute as to ownership of property on trusts . .
Cited by:
Cited – The Chief Land Registrar v Silkstone and Others CA 14-Jul-2011
The Chief Land Registrar appealed against the dismissal of his appeal against the adjudicator’s decision on the cancellation of a unilateral notice. On the day of the adjudication, the Silkstones had purported to withdraw their case, wanting to take . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Registered Land
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.401646
