Daljit Kaur Dhillon v Jeffrey Orchard & Anor

Daljit Kaur Dhillon v Jeffrey Orchard & Anor

The rights to recover money and property under sections 26(2)(a) and 27(2)(a) of FSMA do not extend to successors in title; recovery is limited to the original contractual counterparty. The Judge erred in allowing the Orchards to advance a new argument on appeal without adequate protection for the appellant regarding costs.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Daljit Kaur Dhillon; Defendant/respondent: Jeffrey Orchard; Defendant/respondent: Ann Orchard
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Sale and Rent Back Agreements, Regulated Activities, Successors in Title, Land Registration, Consumer Protection

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

Parties

Daljit Kaur Dhillon

Claimant/appellant

Jeffrey Orchard

Defendant/respondent

Ann Orchard

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the right to recover property under section 26(2) of FSMA extends to successors in title
  2. 2 Whether the Orchards could advance a new argument on appeal not raised at first instance

Ratio Decidendi

The rights to recover money and property under sections 26(2)(a) and 27(2)(a) of FSMA do not extend to successors in title; recovery is limited to the original contractual counterparty. The Judge erred in allowing the Orchards to advance a new argument on appeal without adequate protection for the appellant regarding costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed; the Judge's decision is set aside.