Central London Commercial Estates Ltd v Kato Kagaku Ltd and Another, Axa Equity and Law Assurance Society Plc (Third Party): ChD 15 Jul 1998

Where a squatter had acquired adverse possession rights against lessee, but had not yet applied for registration, a surrender of the registered leasehold did not defeat his claim but operated as acquisition of lessee’s rights.
The court was asked ‘whether, after more than 12 years’ adverse possession by a trespasser, the registered leaseholder of land can, by surrendering the remainder of his term to the freeholder, give the latter a right to immediate possession against the erstwhile squatter. In relation to unregistered land the answer, on House of Lords’ authority, is yes. The issue is whether the provisions of the Land Registration Act 1925, centrally section 75, produce a different outcome in registered conveyancing.’
Held: Where a squatter had acquired adverse possession rights against lessee, but had not yet applied for registration, a surrender of the registered leasehold did not defeat his claim but operated as acquisition of lessee’s rights.

Judges:

Sedley J

Citations:

Times 27-Jul-1998, Gazette 22-Jul-1998, Gazette 30-Sep-1998, [1998] EWHC Ch 314, [1998] EGCS 117, [1998] 4 All ER 948, [1998] 3 EGLR 55, [1998] 46 EG 185

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 7(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78953

Chancery Plc v Ketteringham: ChD 27 Oct 1993

Where a charge had been registered with priority over a caution with the consent of the cautioner, the registered charge has priority over the caution, and the proprietor of the charge can sell the land free of the cautioner’s rights.

Citations:

Times 25-Nov-1993, Independent 27-Oct-1993

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 54

Registered Land

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.78973

Collings v Lee: CA 2001

The claimants asked the defendant to find a purchaser for their house for a fee. Pretending to be a purchaser under an assumed name, he obtained from them the documents necessary to register the transfer, and received a further payment towards the deposit on a new house. He was registered as proprietor, and obtained a substantial advance on a first charge to a building society. He was later convicted of fraud. C, still in possession, received no money for the sale of their house, and none of the other payments was returned. In a dispute between the Collings and the Building Society, the issue was whether their interest was ‘an overriding interest’ as that of a ‘person in actual occupation’. The Society, relying on Lonrho and Twinsectra argued, ‘ . . that the transfer of the property to the first defendant was not void, but voidable by Mr and Mrs Collings; that unless and until they avoided it they had no subsisting equitable interest in the property, their right to avoid it being a ‘mere equity’; and that such a right does not fall within s 70(1)(g).’
Held: The argument was rejected: ‘The rationale of the principle, as it applies to a transfer of property, is that even where the transfer is obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation, the transferor nevertheless intends that the whole legal and beneficial ownership in the property shall pass to the transferee. But that was not this case. Mr and Mrs Collings did not intend to transfer the property to the first defendant and they did not intend to transfer it for no consideration. The first defendant acquired the property without their knowledge and consent and in breach of his fiduciary duty to them. The equitable interest remained vested in Mr and Mrs Collings.’

Judges:

Nourse LJ

Citations:

[2001] 2 All ER

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 70)1)(g)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.188812

Brown and Root v Sun Alliance: CA 2001

Until there has been a transfer in accordance with the provisions of the Land Registration Act the legal title to the estate remains with the vendor

Citations:

[2001] Chancery Ch 733

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoBrown and Root Technology Ltd and Another v Sun Alliance and London Assurance Comp Ltd CA 19-Dec-1996
The claimant had a personal right to exercise a break clause in a lease of which it was the registered proprietor, that right coming to an end when it assigned the lease. The lease was assigned to another company within the group which took over . .

Cited by:

CitedCatlin Estates Ltd and Another v Carter Jonas (A Firm) TCC 31-Oct-2005
The defendants had been employed to manage a building project which it was said went wrong. The court had to consider several different factual claims. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.242992

NRAM Ltd v Evans and Others: CA 19 Jul 2017

Appeal from order directing re-registration of charge over registered land.
Held: It was not a mistake to register a voidable disposition before it was avoided.
The court cited with approval the views of the editors of Megarry and Wade: ‘ ‘Mistake’ is not itself specifically defined in the 2002 Act, but it is suggested that there will be a mistake whenever the Registrar (i) makes an entry in the register that he would not have made; (ii) makes an entry in the register that he would not have made in the form in which it was made; (iii) fails to make an entry in the register which he would otherwise have made; or (iv) deletes an entry which he would not have deleted; had he known the true state of affairs at the time of the entry or deletion. The mistake may consist of a mistaken entry in the register or the mistaken omission of an entry which should have been made. Whether an entry in the register is mistaken depends upon its effect at the time of registration . . . ‘

Judges:

Kitchin, David Richards, Henderson LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 1013, [2017] WLR(D) 491

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.591188

Clark and Another v Chief Land Registrar and Another: ChD 2 Dec 1992

The defendant had made a mistake resulting in an equitable chargee not being given proper opportunity to object to the registration of a further charge with priority. The chargee sought compensation from the defendant registrar.
Held: The registration of a charge is not to be defeated by a minor error – compensation payable. The 1925 Act is an Act of exceptionally low quality.

Judges:

Ferris J

Citations:

Gazette 02-Dec-1992, [1994] Ch 370, [1992] EWHC 1 (Ch), [1993] 2 All ER 936, [1993] Fam Law 579, [1993] 2 FLR 500, (1993) 65 P and CR 186, [1993] 2 WLR 141

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 75, Land Registration Rules 1925 218, Charging Orders Act 1979 2(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedIrani Finance Ltd v Singh CA 1970
Two brothers had acquired land as joint tenants with the aid of a mortgage. Distinct orders were made against each of them charging their respective interests in the land. The mortgagee assigned the mortgage. The brothers held under a trust for . .
CitedParkash v Irani Finance Ltd ChD 1970
A search by an intending chargee had not revealed the existence of a caution on the register which protected a charging order. When the chargee attempted to register the charge, the cautioner was informed. It objected to the registration.
CitedNational Westminster Bank Ltd v Allen ChD 1971
The defendants, a husband and wife, were jointly and severally liable on two joint accounts which were overdrawn. The defendants were joint owners of a house property as joint tenants holding on trust for sale. The plaintiff was seeking a charging . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromClark and Another v Chief Land Registrar and Another; Chancery Plc v Ketteringham CA 5-May-1994
A caution gives a right to be notified of an application, but does not give any priority on registration. . .
CitedGold 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: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.79180

Best v The Chief Land Registrar and Another: Admn 7 May 2014

The court was asked whether the criminalising of trespass to land in the 2012 Act had altered the running of time in applications for registration of title to land by adverse possession.

Judges:

Ouseley J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 1370 (Admin), [2014] WLR(D) 211

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, Land Registration Act 2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.525071

Baker and Another v Craggs: CA 16 May 2018

‘The novel issue raised by this appeal is whether the doctrine of overreaching in section 2(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (‘LPA 1925′) is capable of operating in circumstances where the conveyance to a purchaser which is alleged to have the overreaching effect is the grant of an easement over land, and the equitable interest which is said to be overreached is not an interest in the easement itself, or even in the land conveyed to the purchaser with the benefit of the easement, but an interest in the servient tenement which the common vendor has previously contracted to sell to a third party, and which (following completion of that sale) the vendor holds as a bare trustee for the third party pending registration of his title with HM Land Registry.’

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 1126, [2018] WLR(D) 299

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 2(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land, Land

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.616320

Arnold v Mann, Mann, Daniel, Daniel, Brooks, Quittelier, Scanlan: LRA 22 Mar 2018

Adverse possession claim in respect of one end of a service road, which was then unregistered land and not highway. Held that the Applicant had failed to demonstrate factual possession prior to resurfacing and effective enclosure in 2016. Previous acts were equivocal and almost all consistent with exercise of rights of way and parking. The acts were also insufficiently overt and did not demonstrate the necessary intention to possess.

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 210 (PC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.616310

Flowers v The Chief Land Registrar and Thorpe Estates Limited: UTTC 30 Apr 2018

LAND REGISTRATION – Land Registration Act 2002, section 108(2) – application to First-tier Tribunal to set aside a deed purporting to cancel restrictive covenants and to impose fresh covenants – applicant not a party to the deed – First-tier Tribunal held that applicant did not have standing to apply to set aside the deed – appeal to Upper Tribunal dismissed – when appropriate to make appellant pay the costs of two respondents – summary assessment of costs

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 145 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 2002 108(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609720

Smith v Express Dairy Limited: ChD 1954

Express Dairy (as registered owner) let a shop to Smith, but then transferred its interest to a subsidiary company. The subsidiary did not become registered as owner but nonetheless served notice to quit on Smith.
Held: Unless the subsidiary could be treated as having given notice to quit as agent of Express Dairy the notice to quit was bad, because the reversion remained vested in Express Dairy.

Judges:

Harman J

Citations:

[1954] JPL 45

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedStodday Land Ltd and Another v Pye ChD 7-Oct-2016
The agricultural landlord sold part of his land subject to the respondent’s tenancy to the appellant. Before the transfer was registered, notices to quit were served by both the landlord and his buyer. The tenant challenged both notices in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Registered Land

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.570350

Elias v Mitchell: 1972

A caution against dealings can only be registered to protect some form of interest in land

Citations:

[1972] Ch 652

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedKastner v Jason, Sherman, Sherman and Sherman, Sherman and Kastner ChD 23-Mar-2004
The parties had a dispute arbitrated by the Beth Din, who ordered the sale of a property. In apparent breach of that order the owner purported to sell the property. The claimant had registered a caution which the defendants now sought to be vacated. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.196026

Paige v Webb: CA 26 Jul 2001

The claimant sought rescission of a consent order for specific performance made in an earlier action. The purchasers had not complied simply with the order, but had sought to bring back certain parts of the original contract.
Held: Once an order for specific performance has been made, the matter of how the contract is to be performed lies with the court, not the parties. The consent order itself referred back to the contract, and the remaining conditions still applied. The consent order should not be rescinded on these grounds. The seller had refused to complete without delivering a deed of rectification, nevertheless that would not in the circumstances pose any practical problem.

Judges:

Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice Mummery, Sir Anthony Evans

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1220

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 110(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedSingh v Nazeer 1979
Once an order for specific performance has been made by the court, the parties have put it into the hands of the court as to how the contract is to be carried out. The provisions of the order regulate how the contract is to be carried out. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Contract, Litigation Practice, Registered Land

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.159907

Overseas Investment Services Ltd v Simcobuild Construction Ltd and Another: CA 21 Apr 1995

Grant of s38 rights in a Highways agreement didn’t operate as grant of future public rights of way, nor create an overriding interest.

Citations:

Ind Summary 12-Jun-1995, Times 21-Apr-1995

Statutes:

Highways Act 1980 38(3)(b), Land Registration Act 1925 70(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromOverseas Investment Services Ltd v Simcobuild Construction Ltd and Another ChD 2-Nov-1993
A section 38 agreement was an overriding interest, and created a public right which was binding on purchaser. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Registered Land

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84497

Overseas Investment Services Ltd v Simcobuild Construction Ltd and Another: ChD 2 Nov 1993

A section 38 agreement was an overriding interest, and created a public right which was binding on purchaser.

Citations:

Times 02-Nov-1993

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 70(1)(a)

Cited by:

Appeal fromOverseas Investment Services Ltd v Simcobuild Construction Ltd and Another CA 21-Apr-1995
Grant of s38 rights in a Highways agreement didn’t operate as grant of future public rights of way, nor create an overriding interest. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84498

Oceanic Village Ltd v United Attractions Ltd, Shirayama: ChD 9 Dec 1999

The tenant sought an injunction against its neighbour and landlord to prevent it letting an adjoining property without a restriction similar to the one in its own lease. The claimants sought reassurance from the defendant tenants of the adjoining propery that they would act in accordance with the retriction, but no re-assurance was given.
Held: The claimants were prevented under the 1925 Act from registering a notice, and the defendants took the lease with notice of the restriction. However, the words ‘any demised premises’ in the 1995 Act referred to the premises demised by the particular lease in question, and not to any other premises demised by the landlord. Having granted a lease of part to the claimant covenanting not to allow any other part to be used as a gift shop, the landlord demised another part to the first defendant without incorporating a similar restriction. The landlords were not to be injuncted not to do something which they would not themselves be doing, but which would be done by another tenant. No notice was registerable.
Neuberger J: ‘In my judgment, while it is right to take into account the fact that the draftsman of the lease has departed from, or has omitted part of, a well-established form of words, that will not, at least on its own, normally be a sufficient reason for not giving the words he has used the natural meaning which they would otherwise bear. The fact that the draftsman has used a different form of words in relation to two provisions of a lease concerned with the same concept, in this case the use to which land is not to be put, is also something which should be taken into account when construing either of those provisions, but, again, I do not consider that it should normally justify departing from the natural meaning of either provision.
While it is appropriate for the court to contrast a provision which falls to be construed with a well-established form of words or with the way in which another provision in the lease is drafted, it is also right for the court to bear in mind the way that leases are drafted in practice. It is well known that draftsmen of leases will frequently use many expressions where one will do – see eg per Hoffmann J in Norwich Union Life Insurance Society v British Railways Board [1987] 2 EGLR 137 at 138 and in Tea Trade Properties Ltd v CIN Properties Ltd [1990] 1 EGLR 155 at 158. Furthermore, draftsmen may take the wording of different clauses from different precedents and different clauses may come from different hands.’

Judges:

Neuberger J

Citations:

Times 19-Jan-2000, [2000] 1 All ER 975, [2000] Ch 234

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 3(5), Land Registration Act 1925 50(1)

Citing:

CitedDarstone Ltd v Cleveland Petroleum Co Ltd 1969
. .
CitedNorwich Union Life Insurance v British Railways Board 1987
The court made reference to the ‘torrential style of drafting which has been traditional for many years’ among draftsmen of covenants in leases. ‘The use of ordinary language to convey meaning often involves subtle discriminations which for most . .
CitedTea Trade Properties Ltd v CIN Properties Ltd ChD 1990
It is not unusual for conveyances to say the same thing twice: ‘… I have never found the presumption against superfluous language particularly useful in the construction of leases. The draftsmen traditionally employ linguistic overkill and try to . .

Cited by:

CitedMorrells of Oxford Ltd v Oxford United Football Club Ltd and Others CA 21-Jul-2000
A covenant on the sale of land for a public house provided that the vendor should not permit the building of licensed premises within half a mile.
Held: The covenant operated personally only. The covenants which might be implied by the section . .
CitedRanson v Ranson CA 13-Dec-2001
There had been protracted ancillary relief litigation between the parties resulting in a final order. Part of the order related to property, but the husband asserted that he was incapable of conveying the property since, because of title . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Registered Land

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84420

Mohammed Khurshid Khan: SSC 9 Mar 1994

A notice of deposit which had been lodged at the Land Registry was capable of being an encumbrance on the land for benefits law purposes, despite it not being a formal charge on the land under land law. Capital disregard is for fixed period, the onus to justify discharge lay on Adjudication Officer.

Citations:

Gazette 09-Mar-1994, CIS/255/89

Benefits, Registered Land

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83792

Al-Haddad, and Al-Haddad v Bandheri, and Bandheri: LRA 21 Dec 2017

Adverse Possession : Land Subject To Private or Public Rights of Way – Application to close possessory title to alleyway between two properties. Both parties had an express right of way over the alleyway on foot only. The alleyway was unregistered land and paper owner was not known. Held that the Respondents had fully enclosed the alleyway with locked gates at either end for well over 12 years prior to their registration with possessory title. The alleyway had been incorporated fully into their garden and was used as a flower bed. The fact that the Respondents had an express right of way over the alleyway did not prevent them from acquiring title, but their title is subject to the Applicant’s right to use the alleyway.

Citations:

[2017] EWLandRA 2017 – 0108

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605820

Bacchus v Maduro: LRA 21 Dec 2017

Beneficial Interests, Trusts and Restrictions : Severance
The Applicant bought a house together with the Respondent’s mother as joint tenants in 1966, and both lived in separate parts. They were not related nor were they in a relationship. Solicitors acting for Respondent and her mother purportedly sent a notice severing the tenancy in November 1995. This led to a restriction being placed on the title. A second notice was allegedly served by Respondent’s daughter in December 2003, when her mother was ill in hospital. Respondent’s died in March 2004. Applicant applied to remove the restriction and claimed that neither notice had been served. Held that both notices had been served in accordance with section 196(3) of the Law of Property Act 1925.

Citations:

[2017] EWLandRA 2017 – 0125

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land, Trusts

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605824

Ellis v Meltzer: LRA 21 Dec 2017

Charges and Charging Orders : Subrogation – By oversight, on completion of a sale of a Property the solicitor (Applicant) failed to secure the discharge of one of 2 charges – balance of the completion monies (after redemption of the other mortgage) were paid to HM Revenue and Customs. After Respondent adjudged bankrupt. Applicant paid a sum equal to the monies paid to HMRC to the bank to secure the discharge of 2nd charge. Applicant then proved in the bankruptcy as an unsecured creditor and received a dividend of part of his debt. Applicant registered a unilateral notice against Respondent’s matrimonial home claiming to be subrogated to the rights of the bank, which held a charge against that property, to secure the balance. Held the unilateral notice be cancelled as the Tribunal was not satisfied that the enrichment Applicant relied upon was unjust and/or that subrogation was an appropriate remedy and because the Applicant had surrendered any claim to security by his proof in the bankruptcy.

Citations:

[2017] EWLandRA 2016 – 0692

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605823

Iqbal and Another v Buckinghamshire County Council: LRA 17 Aug 2017

(Practice and Procedure : Scope of Jurisdiction) Application for first registration of a section of embankment to the rear of the Applicants’ home based on adverse possession. Respondent, the local highway authority, argued that the embankment formed part of a defined public footpath and was accordingly part of a highway. The parties accepted that if the disputed land was part of a highway the claim based on adverse possession should fail. The current definitive map of the defined public footpath did not specify the width of the pathway. The embankment did not form part of the footpath as currently used but the local authority contended that the disputed land was part of an ancient drovers’ way. The local authority did not call any expert evidence and the very limited factual evidence was tendered. The evidence presented was not sufficient to support the local authority’s contention and the Applicants’ evidence established adverse possession of the embankment. The application succeeded. The Decision includes a discussion of the extent of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to consider matters not raised in objections made to the Land Registry prior to the reference. Contrary to the Applicants’ submission, it was held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine on the evidence whether the Applicants had adversely possessed the disputed land even though the local authority had not challenged the claim to adverse possession until after the reference. The question of whether the Applicants had adversely possessed the land was part of the ‘matter’ referred to the Tribunal, adopting the approach set out in paragraph 7.4 of A Practical Guide to Land Registration Proceedings.

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 679 (PC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601382

Williams v Besai: LRA 15 Sep 2017

(Fraud, Forgery, Duress and Undue Influence : Effect On Registered Title) Fraud. Applicant sought registration of a transfer; Respondent (the transferor) said that he did not sign either the contract or the TR1. The judge found that although he did not sign the TR1 he did sign the contract. Therefore although the registrar was ordered to cancel the application for registration of the transfer, the judge directed the entry of a notice to protect the contract.

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 713 (PC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601390

Jani v Jani: LRA 5 Sep 2017

(Beneficial Interests, Trusts and Restrictions : Express Agreement) Applicant sought a restriction in Form A to record her beneficial interest in the flat in which she lived, which was part of the registered title, the rest of the title being the ground-floor commercial premises. The Respondent agreed that she could have a restriction (because it was agreed that she had a life interest in the flat) but sought the amendment of the standard form so as to refer only to the flat itself, so as not to hamper his ability to grant leases of the rest of the property. Held that the amendment of the restriction would not meet the criteria set out in s 43(3) of the LRA 2002 (in particular, it would impose an unreasonable burden on the registrar) and so directed the registrar to give effect to the Applican’s application.

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 758 (PC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601387

Khela v Batshoof Investment Lte and Another: LRA 7 Aug 2017

(Charges and Charging Orders : Bankruptcy and Insolvency) Applicant and 2nd Respondent were the registered proprietors of the property; 1st Respondent had a registered charge dated 1993. Nothing had been paid and no interest had accrued under the charge since 1993. A applied to have the charge removed. R1 objected on the basis that it had been acknowledged, by letter from R2’s trustee in bankruptcy as agent for R2. Held that the trustee in bankruptcy was not R2’s agent and also that in any event one mortgagor could not make on behalf of both proprietors an acknowledgement sufficient for section 29 of the Limitation Act 1980. The registrar was directed to respond to the application as if the objection had not been made.

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 676 (PC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601383

Miah v Shafi: LRA 25 Aug 2017

(Beneficial Interests, Trusts and Restrictions : Express Agreement) Claim by A to a beneficial interest in a property bought as an investment at auction in A’s absence and paid for initially with R’s own borrowed funds. A and R had attended auctions together before and A’s evidence was that they had agreed to go into business together, buying and letting out houses. Two months after completion, A transferred to R’s account money borrowed from the bank and from relatives and friends amounting to exactly half the total of the purchase price and costs. The property was let out. There was a chain of texts from A complaining that he had not received his share of the rent, which produced some payments from R. In the proceedings R claimed that A had lent the money to R without R having asked for the money. Held that there was an express agreement that the property would be held for A and R in equal shares. I accepted A’s evidence that R had told him that it was only a technicality that legal title was in his name. A’s claim succeeded. There had been video evidence in the form of an exert from the tv programme ‘Under the Hammer’, showing A and R at an auction and raising their arms together to bid for a property.

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 677 (PC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601384

Arrow Global Guernsey Ltd v Kazibwe and Another: LRA 22 Sep 2017

(Charges and Charging Orders : Charging Orders) Co-owner agreed at the hearing that a judgment creditor with a charging order final was entitled to enter a restriction in the register. An oral agreement between the co-owners in 2007 whereby one transferred her interest to the other was not documented in any way. Post that agreement both co-owners joined in the re-jig of the mortgage, even though all repayments were made by one of them.

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 714 (PC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601386

O’Regan v Cruikshank: LRA 30 Aug 2017

(Beneficial Interests, Trusts and Restrictions : Express Agreement) This was a beneficial interest case where the parties had made an agreement about their interests at the time of purchase but had subsequently made an express agreement which changed their interests. As a result of the finding as to the beneficial interests the registrar was directed to give effect to the application for a restriction. A good example of a beneficial interest dispute where the finding as to the quantum of the interest was an integral part of the decision that there was an interest. The latter could not have been made without the former.

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 736 (PC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601385

Akhtar v Slough Borough Council: LRA 27 Oct 2017

Applicant alleged that her signature on the Transfer of the property had been forged and that the signature (whosever it was) had not been properly witnessed. She sought rectification of the register and her reinstatement as proprietor. There was no objection from the registered proprietor but the Respondent had a restriction in the register in respect of a restraint order under Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The Tribunal found there was insufficient evidence of a forgery. The defective attestation was proven but, on analysis, did not mean there had been a mistake in the register. The Respondent, as the beneficiary of a restraint order, was entitled to be heard on the question of rectification.

Citations:

[2017] EWLandRA 2016 – 0207, [2017] UKFTT 803 (PC)

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601394

Perinpanathan v Popat, Official Receiver As Trustee In Bankruptcy of: LRA 27 Sep 2017

Adverse possession – 2nd Respondent bought the land in 1989 and was registered as proprietor but never took possession. It remained part of the back garden of the house whose owner sold it to 2nd Respondent. Applicant was the seller’s successor in title; she took over the earlier adverse possession. She was entitled to be registered as proprietor pursuant to the transitional provisions; she applied instead under the transitional provisions but was allowed to proceed under Schedule 6 paragraph 5(3). There was no valid objection; but the Respondent’s objection was put in just out of time (at 12:01 on the 65th business day), so the decision sets out in detail why the application would have been successful in any event under paragraph 5(3).

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 712 (PC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601389