Orchard & Anor v Dhillon [2025] EWHC 834 (Ch) (08 April 2025)

Orchard & Anor v Dhillon [2025] EWHC 834 (Ch) (08 April 2025)

The claimant's activities did not amount to carrying on a regulated activity by way of business under section 22 FSMA; however, the original sale and rent back agreement was unenforceable under section 26 FSMA, and the right to recover the property as a mere equity is capable of binding the claimant as successor in title, subject to defences and further factual determination.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 834 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Jeffrey Orchard; Appellant/defendant: Ann Orchard; Respondent/claimant: Daljit Dhillon
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Chancery Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; ground 1 dismissed, ground 2 allowed, matter remitted for further determination.
Legal Topics
Sale and Rent Back Agreements, FSMA Regulated Activities, Unenforceable Agreements, Rescission, Land Registration Act Priorities, Consumer Protection
Property Law Financial Regulation Equity and Trusts Sale and Rent Back Agreements FSMA Regulated Activities Unenforceable Agreements Rescission Land Registration Act Priorities +1 more

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

Parties

Jeffrey Orchard

Appellant/defendant

Ann Orchard

Appellant/defendant

Daljit Dhillon

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's activities constituted 'carrying on by way of business' under section 22 FSMA
  2. 2 Whether the original sale and rent back agreement was unenforceable under section 26 FSMA and if the right to recover property binds successors in title
  3. 3 Whether the right to set aside the transfer constitutes a mere equity binding the claimant under the Land Registration Act 2002

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's activities did not amount to carrying on a regulated activity by way of business under section 22 FSMA; however, the original sale and rent back agreement was unenforceable under section 26 FSMA, and the right to recover the property as a mere equity is capable of binding the claimant as successor in title, subject to defences and further factual determination.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; ground 1 dismissed, ground 2 allowed, matter remitted for further determination.

Orders

  • Ground 1 of appeal dismissed.
  • Ground 2 of appeal allowed; the right to recover the property as a mere equity is capable of binding the claimant as successor in title.