Rees v 82 Portland Place Investments LLP & Anor

Rees v 82 Portland Place Investments LLP & Anor

The court dismissed the appeal, holding that although there was a mistake by the Land Registry, it would not be unjust within the meaning of Schedule 4, paragraph 3(2)(b) of the Land Registration Act 2002 to refuse rectification against the registered proprietor in possession, as the operation of the registration system and the absence of fault or windfall to the respondents did not justify altering the register.

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
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rectification of Land Register, Leasehold Reform, Unilateral Notice, Priority of Interests, Mistake in Registration
Property Law Land Registration Rectification of Land Register Leasehold Reform Unilateral Notice Priority of Interests Mistake in Registration

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 3 Authorities cited 8 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

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has power to rectify the land register to protect an unregistered section 42 notice due to a Land Registry mistake
  2. 2 Whether it would be unjust not to order rectification under Schedule 4 of the Land Registration Act 2002

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed the appeal, holding that although there was a mistake by the Land Registry, it would not be unjust within the meaning of Schedule 4, paragraph 3(2)(b) of the Land Registration Act 2002 to refuse rectification against the registered proprietor in possession, as the operation of the registration system and the absence of fault or windfall to the respondents did not justify altering the register.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed