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.
Parties
Daljit Kaur Dhillon
Claimant/appellant
Jeffrey Orchard
Defendant/respondent
Ann Orchard
Defendant/respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the right to recover property under section 26(2) of FSMA extends to successors in title
- 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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment