Dhillon v Barclays Bank Plc & Anor

Dhillon v Barclays Bank Plc & Anor

The claimant's signatures on both Transfer 1 and Transfer 2 were not genuine and not authorised, rendering the transfers void and the registration of the BB Charge a mistake. However, the effect of the Moncaster Order was to place the claimant in no better position than CEL, which held the property subject to the BB Charge. Rectification would unjustly enrich the claimant, who could never have acquired the unencumbered property, and thus exceptional circumstances exist justifying refusal of rectification.

Parties
Claimant: Simer Kaur Dhillon; First Defendant: Barclays Bank PLC; Second Defendant: Chief Land Registrar
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Property/trusts/probate / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Rectification of Land Register, Forgery and Void Dispositions, Abuse of Process, Indemnity Under Land Registration Act, Exceptional Circumstances in Rectification
Land Law Equity and Trusts Civil Procedure Rectification of Land Register Forgery and Void Dispositions Abuse of Process Indemnity Under Land Registration Act Exceptional Circumstances in Rectification

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simer Kaur Dhillon

Claimant

Barclays Bank PLC

First Defendant

Chief Land Registrar

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Property/trusts/probate / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's signature on property transfer documents was forged and thus voiding subsequent dispositions
  2. 2 Whether the register should be rectified to remove the BB Charge
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings constitute an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's signatures on both Transfer 1 and Transfer 2 were not genuine and not authorised, rendering the transfers void and the registration of the BB Charge a mistake. However, the effect of the Moncaster Order was to place the claimant in no better position than CEL, which held the property subject to the BB Charge. Rectification would unjustly enrich the claimant, who could never have acquired the unencumbered property, and thus exceptional circumstances exist justifying refusal of rectification.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claimant's claim for rectification of the register by removal of the BB Charge is dismissed.