Bank of Scotland Plc v Greville Development Company (Midlands) Ltd & Ors [2014] EWHC 128 (Ch) (31 January 2014)

Bank of Scotland Plc v Greville Development Company (Midlands) Ltd & Ors [2014] EWHC 128 (Ch) (31 January 2014)

The court found that the true agreement and mutual intention of the parties was that the loan would be secured by a first legal charge over the whole property (both titles), and that omission of the 916 title from the deed was a clerical error. The alteration by HMLR was valid, or alternatively, rectification would be ordered. The rule in Pigot's Case did not apply as the alteration was not prejudicial and reflected the parties' intention. Mr Blundell's evidence was rejected as untrue and unsupported. The DS1 discharge was found to be a forgery. The leases and charges created after 2003 were invalid. The compromise argument was rejected.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 128 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Bank of Scotland PLC; First Defendant: Greville Development Company (Midlands) Limited; Second Defendant: Cavalier Universal Limited; Third Defendant: David Andrew Blundell; Fourth Defendant: Guy Alexander Blundell; Fifth Defendant: Richard Andrew Blundell; Sixth Defendant: Sarah Helen Sharpe; Seventh Defendant: Jennifer Sutcliffe; Eighth Defendant: Arthur Sutcliffe; Ninth Defendant: Patrick James Mortimore Doherty; Tenth Defendant: Heide Doherty; Eleventh Defendant: The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland; Twelfth Defendant: UCB Home Loans Corporation Limited; Thirteenth Defendant: Santander UK PLC; Fourteenth Defendant: West One Loan Limited; Fifteenth Defendant: Chasewood Investments Limited; Sixteenth Defendant: Anthony Raymond Trowers
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Claim / Post Trial Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant
Legal Topics
Rectification of Deeds, Forgery, Land Charges, Security for Loans, Rule in Pigot's Case, Land Registration Rules, Freezing Orders
Property Law Equity Banking Law Land Registration Rectification of Deeds Forgery Land Charges Security for Loans +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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bank of Scotland PLC

Claimant

Greville Development Company (Midlands) Limited

First Defendant

Cavalier Universal Limited

Second Defendant

David Andrew Blundell

Third Defendant

Guy Alexander Blundell

Fourth Defendant

Richard Andrew Blundell

Fifth Defendant

Sarah Helen Sharpe

Sixth Defendant

Jennifer Sutcliffe

Seventh Defendant

Arthur Sutcliffe

Eighth Defendant

Patrick James Mortimore Doherty

Ninth Defendant

Heide Doherty

Tenth Defendant

The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland

Eleventh Defendant

UCB Home Loans Corporation Limited

Twelfth Defendant

Santander UK PLC

Thirteenth Defendant

West One Loan Limited

Fourteenth Defendant

Chasewood Investments Limited

Fifteenth Defendant

Anthony Raymond Trowers

Sixteenth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil Claim / Post Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bank is entitled to rectification of the deed to include both title numbers as security for the loan
  2. 2 Whether the alteration of the deed by HM Land Registry was valid under Rule 130 of the Land Registration Rules 2003
  3. 3 Whether the DS1 discharge was a forgery

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the true agreement and mutual intention of the parties was that the loan would be secured by a first legal charge over the whole property (both titles), and that omission of the 916 title from the deed was a clerical error. The alteration by HMLR was valid, or alternatively, rectification would be ordered. The rule in Pigot's Case did not apply as the alteration was not prejudicial and reflected the parties' intention. Mr Blundell's evidence was rejected as untrue and unsupported. The DS1 discharge was found to be a forgery. The leases and charges created after 2003 were invalid. The compromise argument was rejected.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant

Orders

  • Declaration that the deed as altered validly charges both titles as security for the loan
  • Rectification of the deed to include both titles if necessary