Stanislaw Sokolowski v Together Commercial Finance Ltd & Ors

Stanislaw Sokolowski v Together Commercial Finance Ltd & Ors

Registration of Third Respondent as proprietor was a mistake caused by fraud; subsequent applications for transfer and legal charge are also mistakes and must be rectified. Second Respondent was not in possession at time of application, so rectification is not barred. Even if possession existed, it would be unjust not to rectify due to Applicant's loss and Respondents' risk profile. No exceptional circumstances justify refusal to rectify.

Parties
Applicant: Stanislaw Sokolowski; First Respondent: Together Commercial Finance Ltd; Second Respondent: Mato Homes Ltd; Third Respondent: Peter Petrovics
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Land Registration Rectification Reference / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application for rectification granted; Respondents' applications cancelled.
Legal Topics
Rectification of Register, Mistake, Fraudulent Transfer, Legal Charge, Possession, Indemnity
Land Law Property Law Fraud Rectification of Register Mistake Fraudulent Transfer Legal Charge Possession +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 7 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stanislaw Sokolowski

Applicant

Together Commercial Finance Ltd

First Respondent

Mato Homes Ltd

Second Respondent

Peter Petrovics

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Registration Rectification Reference / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether registration of Third Respondent as proprietor was a mistake caused by fraud
  2. 2 Whether subsequent transfer and legal charge applications should be granted
  3. 3 Whether rectification is barred by possession or exceptional circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

Registration of Third Respondent as proprietor was a mistake caused by fraud; subsequent applications for transfer and legal charge are also mistakes and must be rectified. Second Respondent was not in possession at time of application, so rectification is not barred. Even if possession existed, it would be unjust not to rectify due to Applicant's loss and Respondents' risk profile. No exceptional circumstances justify refusal to rectify.

Court Disposition

Application for rectification granted; Respondents' applications cancelled.

Orders

  • Chief Land Registrar directed to give effect to Applicant's application and cancel Respondents' applications.
  • Any party seeking costs may make written application in accordance with Tribunal rules.