Patel v Freddy's Ltd & Ors [2017] EWHC 73 (Ch) (24 January 2017)

Patel v Freddy's Ltd & Ors [2017] EWHC 73 (Ch) (24 January 2017)

The First Defendant and its solicitor acted with proper care in accordance with standard conveyancing practice and did not cause or substantially contribute to the mistaken registration. There was no lack of proper care that would justify rectification of the register under Schedule 4 of the Land Registration Act 2002. The claim for rectification fails.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 73 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Ashokkumar Somabhai Patel; First Defendant: Freddy's Limited; Second Defendant: The Chief Land Registrar; Third Party/defendant: Simon Finegold
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division High Court Civil Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed; rectification refused.
Legal Topics
Rectification of Land Register, Indemnity From Land Registry, Covenants for Title, Fraudulent Transfer, Conveyancing Practice
Property Law Land Registration Rectification of Land Register Indemnity From Land Registry Covenants for Title Fraudulent Transfer Conveyancing Practice

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashokkumar Somabhai Patel

Claimant

Freddy's Limited

First Defendant

The Chief Land Registrar

Second Defendant

Simon Finegold

Third Party/defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division High Court Civil Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the register should be rectified to restore the claimant as registered proprietor under Schedule 4 of the Land Registration Act 2002
  2. 2 Whether the First Defendant caused or substantially contributed to the mistaken registration by lack of proper care
  3. 3 Whether the First Defendant is entitled to special protection as registered proprietor in possession

Ratio Decidendi

The First Defendant and its solicitor acted with proper care in accordance with standard conveyancing practice and did not cause or substantially contribute to the mistaken registration. There was no lack of proper care that would justify rectification of the register under Schedule 4 of the Land Registration Act 2002. The claim for rectification fails.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; rectification refused.

Orders

  • No order for rectification of the register.
  • No finding on liability in the Third Party claim.