Prestige Properties Ltd. v Scottish Provident Institution & Anor [2002] EWHC 330 (Ch) (13th March, 2002)

Prestige Properties Ltd. v Scottish Provident Institution & Anor [2002] EWHC 330 (Ch) (13th March, 2002)

Prestige was entitled to rely on the 1997 official search certificate, and its solicitors were not required to investigate further the matters certified therein. The errors in the certificate were an effective cause of Prestige's loss. The Registrar failed to establish that Prestige's loss was wholly or partly due to its own lack of proper care. Accordingly, Prestige is entitled to an indemnity under section 83(3) of the Land Registration Act 1925.

Citation
[2002] EWHC 330 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Prestige Properties Limited; First Defendant: Scottish Provident Institution; Second Defendant: The Chief Land Registrar
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
High Court Chancery Division Civil Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim for indemnity against the Chief Land Registrar succeeded.
Legal Topics
Indemnity for Land Registry Errors, Official Search Certificates, Rectification of Register, Solicitor's Duty of Care, Contributory Negligence in Indemnity Claims
Property Law Land Registration Professional Negligence Indemnity for Land Registry Errors Official Search Certificates Rectification of Register Solicitor's Duty of Care Contributory Negligence in Indemnity 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prestige Properties Limited

Claimant

Scottish Provident Institution

First Defendant

The Chief Land Registrar

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Chancery Division Civil Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether errors in the Land Registry's filed plan and official search certificate entitle the claimant to an indemnity under section 83 of the Land Registration Act 1925
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's loss was wholly or partly due to its own lack of proper care, defeating or reducing entitlement to indemnity
  3. 3 Whether reliance on an official search certificate discharges a solicitor's duty of care in conveyancing

Ratio Decidendi

Prestige was entitled to rely on the 1997 official search certificate, and its solicitors were not required to investigate further the matters certified therein. The errors in the certificate were an effective cause of Prestige's loss. The Registrar failed to establish that Prestige's loss was wholly or partly due to its own lack of proper care. Accordingly, Prestige is entitled to an indemnity under section 83(3) of the Land Registration Act 1925.

Court Disposition

Claim for indemnity against the Chief Land Registrar succeeded.

Orders

  • The Chief Land Registrar is ordered to indemnify Prestige Properties Limited for its loss, less the £50,000 already received from the Scottish Provident Institution.