Jeffrey Orchard & Anor v Daljit Dhillon

Jeffrey Orchard & Anor v Daljit Dhillon

The defendants' statutory right to recover property transferred under an unenforceable sale and rent back agreement binds successors in title and constitutes a mere equity protected by actual occupation under the Land Registration Act; the claimant did not carry on regulated activities by way of business, but the right to recover property is not defeated by transfer to a third party.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Jeffrey Orchard; Appellant/defendant: Ann Orchard; Respondent/claimant: Daljit Dhillon
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed on ground 2; remitted for further hearing on consequential issues.
Legal Topics
Sale and Rent Back Agreements, Regulated Activities, Rescission, Land Registration Act, Financial Services and Markets Act
Property Law Financial Regulation Consumer Protection Sale and Rent Back Agreements Regulated Activities Rescission Land Registration Act Financial Services and Markets Act

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeffrey Orchard

Appellant/defendant

Ann Orchard

Appellant/defendant

Daljit Dhillon

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant carried on regulated activities 'by way of business' under FSMA section 22
  2. 2 Whether the original sale and rent back agreement was unenforceable under FSMA section 26
  3. 3 Whether the defendants' statutory right to recover property binds successors in title under the Land Registration Act

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' statutory right to recover property transferred under an unenforceable sale and rent back agreement binds successors in title and constitutes a mere equity protected by actual occupation under the Land Registration Act; the claimant did not carry on regulated activities by way of business, but the right to recover property is not defeated by transfer to a third party.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed on ground 2; remitted for further hearing on consequential issues.

Orders

  • Further hearing to determine consequences, including possible section 28 defence, counter-restitution, and impact of third party charge.
  • Parties urged to seek settlement using ADR.