NRAM Ltd v Evans & Ors

NRAM Ltd v Evans & Ors

The alteration of the register following rescission of the e-DS1 was not rectification for mistake but an update to reflect the current legal position. Therefore, the requirements for rectification, including proof of fraud or lack of proper care by the registered proprietors, did not apply. NRAM was entitled to re-registration of the charge, and the appellants were not entitled to indemnity. The claim under the Data Protection Act 1998 failed as there was no evidence NRAM held or supplied incorrect data.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: NRAM Ltd; Defendant/appellant: Paul Morgan Evans; Defendant/appellant: Susannah Jane Evans; Intervenor: The Chief Land Registrar
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed save for variation of the order as to the effect of re-registration and priority.
Legal Topics
Alteration of Land Register, Rectification of Register, Voidable Dispositions, Indemnity Under Land Registration Act, Data Protection Act Claims
Land Law Property Law Data Protection Alteration of Land Register Rectification of Register Voidable Dispositions Indemnity Under Land Registration Act Data Protection Act Claims

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NRAM Ltd

Claimant/respondent

Paul Morgan Evans

Defendant/appellant

Susannah Jane Evans

Defendant/appellant

The Chief Land Registrar

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Land Register should be altered by re-registration of a charge following rescission of an electronic discharge (e-DS1) submitted by mistake
  2. 2 Whether the alteration constitutes rectification or merely bringing the register up to date under Schedule 4 of the Land Registration Act 2002
  3. 3 Whether the appellants contributed by lack of proper care to the mistake

Ratio Decidendi

The alteration of the register following rescission of the e-DS1 was not rectification for mistake but an update to reflect the current legal position. Therefore, the requirements for rectification, including proof of fraud or lack of proper care by the registered proprietors, did not apply. NRAM was entitled to re-registration of the charge, and the appellants were not entitled to indemnity. The claim under the Data Protection Act 1998 failed as there was no evidence NRAM held or supplied incorrect data.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed save for variation of the order as to the effect of re-registration and priority.

Orders

  • Order for re-registration of the 2004 charge as proprietor to bring the register up to date, not as if it had never been removed or with original priority.
  • Application for indemnity from the Chief Land Registrar dismissed.