The parties disputed the effects of charges over a property. A charge had not been registered, but merely noted on the registers. The defendants had purchased it from another chargee acting under a power of sale. The defendants had applied to be registered, but the Land Registry had declined to register them.
Held: The Land Registry should have registered the transfer.
Purle QC J said: ‘it seems to me that the claimant had full power of sale over the freehold, notwithstanding that its charge was not substantively registered and that it did not become the registered proprietor of any charge. The power of sale derives not from the niceties of the Land Registration legislation, but from the Law of Property Act 1925, and all that is required is a mortgage by deed. For section 88 to be engaged, all that is required, so far as relevant to the present case, is a charge by way of legal mortgage. The fact that this charge by way of legal mortgage was in the event unregistered, is, in my judgment, neither here nor there. It is still such a charge within the meaning of the Law of Property Act 1925, and section 88 in particular. In those circumstances it seems to me that the claimant is entitled to succeed on that ground alone.’
Purle QC J
[2011] EWHC 2410 (Ch)
Bailii
Law of Property Act 1925 85 88 101(6)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – in Re White Rose Cottage ChD 1964
The court held that under a mortgage by deposit under seal, a true equitable mortgage – that the expression ‘the mortgaged property’ in section 101 meant the property over which the mortgage deed purported to extend and was not limited to an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Registered Land, Land
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.444780
