Baylis & Anor v Haider & Ors [2024] EWHC 187 (Ch) (01 February 2024)

Baylis & Anor v Haider & Ors [2024] EWHC 187 (Ch) (01 February 2024)

The transfer to Mr Haider was not void for non est factum or mistake; the Claimants signed the TR1 with sufficient understanding of its effect. The sale was genuine, and the Land Register will not be rectified. Together's charge is valid and binds the property. The claim for unjust enrichment fails as full consideration was paid. Edward Marshall breached its duty of care, but causation and quantum are limited by the court's findings. The FSMA 2000 claim fails as the arrangement was not a regulated sale and rent back agreement.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 187 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: John Baylis; Claimant: Elena Kreuder; Defendant: Syed Ali Haider; Defendant: PG Solicitors (t/a Edward Marshall Solicitors); Defendant: Together Commercial Finance Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 February 2024
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Claim / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed against Mr Haider and Together; partial judgment against Edward Marshall for breach of duty.
Legal Topics
Rectification of Land Register, Non Est Factum, Mistake in Contract, Unjust Enrichment, Negligence of Solicitors, Sale and Rent Back Arrangements, FSMA 2000 Compliance, Priority of Charges, Actual Occupation, Execution of TR1, Fraud Allegations
Property Law Trusts Probate Bankruptcy Financial Services Regulation Professional Negligence Rectification of Land Register Non Est Factum +9 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Baylis

Claimant

Elena Kreuder

Claimant

Syed Ali Haider

Defendant

PG Solicitors (t/a Edward Marshall Solicitors)

Defendant

Together Commercial Finance Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Claim / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transfer to Mr Haider is void for non est factum or mistake
  2. 2 Whether the Claimants are entitled to rectification of the Land Register under Sch.4 LRA 2002
  3. 3 Whether Mr Haider was unjustly enriched

Ratio Decidendi

The transfer to Mr Haider was not void for non est factum or mistake; the Claimants signed the TR1 with sufficient understanding of its effect. The sale was genuine, and the Land Register will not be rectified. Together's charge is valid and binds the property. The claim for unjust enrichment fails as full consideration was paid. Edward Marshall breached its duty of care, but causation and quantum are limited by the court's findings. The FSMA 2000 claim fails as the arrangement was not a regulated sale and rent back agreement.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed against Mr Haider and Together; partial judgment against Edward Marshall for breach of duty.

Orders

  • No rectification of the Land Register; Mr Haider remains proprietor.
  • Together's charge remains valid and binding.