Victus Estates & Ors v Munroe & Ors [2021] EWHC 2411 (Ch) (27 August 2021)

Victus Estates & Ors v Munroe & Ors [2021] EWHC 2411 (Ch) (27 August 2021)

The forged TR1s were not shams in their entirety; section 63 Law of Property Act 1925 operated to transfer Mr Charles' equitable interest to Victus Estates companies, which could then be charged to the lenders. The judge erred in holding the TR1s were wholly void. Registration did not affect the overriding equitable interests of Ms Munroe and Ms Benjamin, who were in actual occupation. The register should be rectified to restore their legal and beneficial ownership, subject to lenders' subrogated rights to earlier charges.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2411 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Victus Estates (2) Limited; Claimant/respondent: Victus Estates (3) Limited; Claimant/respondent: Deepak Raj Agrawal; Claimant/respondent: Simple To Finance Limited; Defendant/respondent: Monica Munroe; Third Party/appellant: Shawbrook Bank Limited; Claimant/respondent: Julietta Sonia Benjamin; Defendant/respondent: Victus Estates (1) Limited; Defendant/appellant: OneSavings Bank PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Chancery Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeals allowed
Legal Topics
Forgery, Sham Transactions, Beneficial Ownership, Mortgage Fraud, Rectification of Land Register, Subrogation, Illegality in Transactions
Property Law Equity Fraud Land Registration Forgery Sham Transactions Beneficial Ownership Mortgage Fraud +3 more

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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Victus Estates (2) Limited

Claimant/respondent

Victus Estates (3) Limited

Claimant/respondent

Deepak Raj Agrawal

Claimant/respondent

Simple To Finance Limited

Claimant/respondent

Monica Munroe

Defendant/respondent

Shawbrook Bank Limited

Third Party/appellant

Julietta Sonia Benjamin

Claimant/respondent

Victus Estates (1) Limited

Defendant/respondent

OneSavings Bank PLC

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether forged TR1 transfers are shams and void or effective to transfer equitable interests
  2. 2 Whether lenders acquire any interest via charges granted by transferees who participated in fraud
  3. 3 Whether section 63 Law of Property Act 1925 applies to fraudulent conveyances

Ratio Decidendi

The forged TR1s were not shams in their entirety; section 63 Law of Property Act 1925 operated to transfer Mr Charles' equitable interest to Victus Estates companies, which could then be charged to the lenders. The judge erred in holding the TR1s were wholly void. Registration did not affect the overriding equitable interests of Ms Munroe and Ms Benjamin, who were in actual occupation. The register should be rectified to restore their legal and beneficial ownership, subject to lenders' subrogated rights to earlier charges.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed

Orders

  • Register to be rectified to restore Ms Munroe and Ms Benjamin as proprietors
  • Charges in favour of Shawbrook and OneSavings to be removed