Nugent v Nugent: ChD 20 Dec 2013

The court was asked whether the court has, following the the 2002 Act, an inherent power to order the cancellation of a unilateral notice registered against a title registered under the 2002 Act and, if so, in what circumstances, and how, such a power should be exercised.
Held: It did have that power. The power was akin to that pertaining to the vacation of cautions registered under the Land Registration Act 1925. Though the 1925 Act had been replaced, in this aspect the law remained substatntially the same, and cases under the former Acts might be applied.
Morgan J asked himself: ‘Was the beneficiary of the register entry entitled to say that the statute permitted such an entry where the alleged facts supported it and whether the facts were as alleged could only be determined at a trial? Was the beneficiary therefore entitled to maintain the entry until trial irrespective of whether the entry would cause uncompensatable prejudice to the owner of the land?’, and answered: ‘I conclude that the jurisdiction, recognised and developed by the courts, in relation to the vacation of cautions registered under the LRA 1925, applies also in relation to unilateral notices registered under the 2002 Act. That jurisdiction applied in different ways in relation to cautions to protect claims which were unsustainable and in relation to cautions to protect claims which were well arguable. In the present case, on the material before me, David Nugent’s claim is well arguable. Accordingly, I cannot order the cancellation of the unilateral notice on the ground that his claim is without substance. The earlier cases where the underlying claim was well arguable only went so far as to require an undertaking in damages from the beneficiary of the caution, as a condition of keeping the caution in place. However, the clear philosophy of those cases was that the court should not allow the beneficiary of the notice to have the protection of the notice pending trial without the court considering the position of the registered proprietor and whether, and if so how, the proprietor should be protected pending trial. The court proceeded on the basis of an analogy with the position it would adopt if the beneficiary of the notice had, instead of registering a notice, applied for an interim injunction. I will therefore consider, in accordance with the philosophy in the earlier cases what the court would do, as between these parties, if David Nugent applied for an interim injunction pending trial and, in that context, I will take into account any adverse effect on Mrs Nugent of the court granting such an injunction.’

Morgan J
[2014] 3 WLR 59, [2014] 2 All ER 313, [2013] EWHC 4095 (Ch), [2013] WLR (D) 516
Bailii, WLRD
Land Registration Act 2002, Land Charges Act 1925, Land Registration Act 1925
England and Wales
CitedClearbrook Property Holdings Limited v Verrier ChD 1974
The issue was whether a caution registered in the Land Registry by a plaintiff purchaser who was claiming specific performance of an agreement for sale should be vacated. The effect of the vacation of the caution was that the plaintiff’s claim for . .
CitedFitzroy Development Ltd v Fitzrovia Properties Ltd ChD 2011
A person with a reasonably arguable case in support of the existence of the interest claimed had ‘reasonable cause’ to enter a unilateral notice against a registered title to protect such an interest, even where a court later ruled against the . .
CitedTiverton Estates Ltd v Wearwell Ltd CA 1975
“Subject to Contract” not to be diluted
‘subject to contract’ proposals remain in negotiation until a formal contract is executed. Lord Denning MR said: ‘for over a hundred years, the courts have held that the effect of the words ‘subject to contract’ is that the matter remains in . .
CitedAmerican Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd HL 5-Feb-1975
Interim Injunctions in Patents Cases
The plaintiffs brought proceedings for infringement of their patent. The proceedings were defended. The plaintiffs obtained an interim injunction to prevent the defendants infringing their patent, but they now appealed its discharge by the Court of . .
CitedGillett v Holt and Another CA 23-Mar-2000
Repeated Assurances Created Equitable Estoppel
Repeated assurances, given over years, that the claimant would acquire an interest in property on the death of the person giving the re-assurance, and upon which the claimant relied to his detriment, could found a claim of equitable estoppel. The . .
CitedThorner v Major and others HL 25-Mar-2009
The deceased had made a will including a gift to the claimant, but had then revoked the will. The claimant asserted that an estoppel had been created in his favour over a farm, and that the defendant administrators of the promisor’s estate held it . .
CitedNottingham Building Society v Eurodynamics Systems plc 1993
The court laid down tests for the granting of mandatory interim injunctions. The court should consider whether there was a high degree of confidence that the applicant would succeed in establishing his right at trial. The higher that confidence, the . .
MentionedNottingham Building Society v Eurodynamics Systems plc CA 1995
Dictum at first instance approved. . .
CitedHeywood v BDC Properties Ltd (No 2) CA 1964
The registration of an action as a lis pendens by a non-counterclaiming defendant was held to be an abuse, and although there was no jurisdiction to vacate the registration under the Land Charges Act 1925, the Court had an inherent jurisdiction to . .
CitedHeywood v BDC Properties Ltd (No 1) CA 1963
The registration of a claim was founded on negotiations through correspondence. The Court examined the correspondence, and found that it was clear that there was no possible binding contract existing between the parties, vacated the registration. It . .
CitedTaylor v Taylor CA 1968
Mrs T, by summons under section 17 sought a declaration that she and her husband were beneficial owners in equal shares of the matrimonial home and that the premises should be sold and the proceeds divided equally between them. She registered a lis . .
CitedThe Rawlplug Co Ltd v Kamvale Properties Ltd ChD 1969
Megarry J said: ‘to effect registration of a . . caution is an easy matter, and . . to do so will usually effectually inhibit any disposition of the land so long as the registration remains effective. Registration may, therefore, become a weapon of . .
CitedCalgary and Edmonton Land Co Ltd v Discount Bank (Overseas) Ltd ChD 1971
Cautions had been registered against land to protect interests claimed in a pending action. The action had been struck out at first instance, an appeal to the Court of Appeal had failed but a petition for leave to appeal to the House of Lords was . .
CitedLester v Burgess 1973
. .
CitedClearbrook Property Holdings Limited v Verrier ChD 1974
The issue was whether a caution registered in the Land Registry by a plaintiff purchaser who was claiming specific performance of an agreement for sale should be vacated. The effect of the vacation of the caution was that the plaintiff’s claim for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land, Land

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.519348