Rees v 82 Portland Place Investments LLP & Anor [2020] EWHC 1177 (Ch) (15 May 2020)

Rees v 82 Portland Place Investments LLP & Anor [2020] EWHC 1177 (Ch) (15 May 2020)

The court held that while it has power to make consequential orders to correct the effects of a mistake in registration, rectification against a proprietor in possession is only justified if it would be positively unjust not to rectify. In this case, the respondents did not cause or contribute to the mistake, had limited knowledge, and the financial detriment to Ms. Rees was a function of the registration system, not a windfall or unjust enrichment. Therefore, it would not be unjust to refuse rectification.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1177 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Serena Rees; Respondent/defendant: 82 Portland Place Investments LLP; Respondent/defendant: 82 Portland Place (Freehold) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Central London County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rectification of Land Register, Leasehold Reform, Mistake in Registration, Priority of Interests, Schedule 4 Land Registration Act 2002
Property Law Land Registration Rectification of Land Register Leasehold Reform Mistake in Registration Priority of Interests Schedule 4 Land Registration Act 2002

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Serena Rees

Appellant/claimant

82 Portland Place Investments LLP

Respondent/defendant

82 Portland Place (Freehold) Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Central London County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has power to rectify the register and make consequential orders to revive a section 42 notice extinguished by mistake
  2. 2 Whether it would be unjust not to rectify the register under Schedule 4, paragraph 3(2)(b) Land Registration Act 2002

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while it has power to make consequential orders to correct the effects of a mistake in registration, rectification against a proprietor in possession is only justified if it would be positively unjust not to rectify. In this case, the respondents did not cause or contribute to the mistake, had limited knowledge, and the financial detriment to Ms. Rees was a function of the registration system, not a windfall or unjust enrichment. Therefore, it would not be unjust to refuse rectification.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No rectification of the register
  • No consequential order to revive section 42 notice