NRAM Ltd v Evans & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 1013 (19 July 2017)

NRAM Ltd v Evans & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 1013 (19 July 2017)

The alteration of the register following rescission of the e-DS1 was not rectification for mistake but bringing the register up to date under Schedule 4, paragraph 2(1)(b) LRA 2002; indemnity was not available as the case did not involve rectification; NRAM did not hold or supply incorrect personal data about the appellants.

Citation
[2017] EWCA Civ 1013
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
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with variation
Legal Topics
Land Registration, Rectification of Register, Mistake in Register, Indemnity, Data Protection Act 1998
Property Law Data Protection Land Registration Rectification of Register Mistake in Register Indemnity Data Protection Act 1998

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
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

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Land Register should be altered by re-registration of a charge after mistaken discharge
  2. 2 Whether the alteration constitutes rectification or bringing the register up to date under Schedule 4 LRA 2002
  3. 3 Entitlement to indemnity under Schedule 8 LRA 2002

Ratio Decidendi

The alteration of the register following rescission of the e-DS1 was not rectification for mistake but bringing the register up to date under Schedule 4, paragraph 2(1)(b) LRA 2002; indemnity was not available as the case did not involve rectification; NRAM did not hold or supply incorrect personal data about the appellants.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with variation

Orders

  • Order varied to remove retrospective priority and re-registration 'as if it had never been removed'; otherwise, judge's order upheld
  • Application for indemnity from Chief Land Registrar dismissed