Albert Gregorio Hines (Plaintiff) Applicant) v Halifax Building Society Respondent)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE NEILL,LORD JUSTICE STUART-SMITH,LORD JUSTICE BELDAM |
| Judgment Date | 14 September 1992 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1992] EWCA Civ J0914-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 14 September 1992 |
| Docket Number | 92/0834 |
[1992] EWCA Civ J0914-1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
(MR. JUSTICE VINELOTT)
Royal Courts of Justice.
Lord Justice Neill
Lord Justice Stuart-Smith
Lord Justice Beldam
92/0834
THE APPLICANT appeared in person.
This is an application by Professor Albert Gregorio Hines. By a notice dated 21st August 1992 he seeks a declaration that he is entitled to appeal as of right against the order of Mr. Justice Vinelott dated 30th June 1989 in so far as it related to the removal of cautions registered at the Land Registry against a property known as 38 Onslow Gardens, London, N.10, and the registration of the second and third defendants as the legal proprietors thereof. Alternatively, the plaintiff asks for an order that he be granted leave to appeal against that part of the judge's order if it is determined that leave is required.
To understand the nature of the application it is necessary for me to say a little about the facts. In October 1976 Professor Hines bought 38 Onslow Gardens. He did so with the assistance of a mortgage granted by the Halifax Building Society. Payments under the mortgage fell into arrears. On 24th September 1984 the building society started proceedings in the Clerkenwell County Court seeking possession. They obtained possession in due course. There was then an agreement reached between Professor Hines and the building society whereby he was let back into possession of the property in April 1985. About a year later, however, on 15th May 1986, the building society instituted fresh proceedings in the Clerkenwell County Court. They obtained judgment in July and possession by means of a warrant of execution on 20th November 1986.
On 19th November, however, the day before that warrant was executed, Professor Hines had been told by a representative of the building society that they intended to sell the property. In December Professor Hines told them that he wanted to redeem the mortgage, still believing that they intended to sell the property. On 12th January 1987 Professor Hines issued the writ in the present proceedings (core bundle, page 15). In those proceedings he claimed (inter alia) an account of the payments made under the mortgage and also an injunction to restrain the building society until the account had been taken from purporting to exercise their remedy by way of sale of the property.
Following the issue of the writ Professor Hines applied for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the sale. That application failed. On 12th June 1987 the property was sold by the building society to two purchasers, Mr. Zelinger and Mrs. Guttman. Those purchasers subsequently became defendants in the action in circumstances to which I shall refer. The exchange of contracts for the sale of the property had taken place on 18th May. Shortly after that, on 28th May 1987 and before the conveyance had been completed, Professor Hines registered two cautions against the property. As a result of the existence of those cautions the purchasers were unable to be registered as proprietors. They made attempts to take advantage of the statutory procedure of "warning off" the cautions, but this was unsuccessful. The registrar appreciated that the plaintiff was seeking to set aside the sale by the Halifax Building Society to the purchasers and that it was not an appropriate case for the "warning off" procedure to be adopted. As a result on 10th February 1989 the purchasers applied by summons to be joined as defendants to the action. On 9th May 1989 Master Gowers ordered that they should become defendants (core bundle, page 91).
The next step was for the purchasers (now the second and third defendants in the action) to apply for the removal of the cautions. On 6th June 1989 they issued a notice of motion (core bundle, page 14), whereby they asked for an order that the "interveners", as they were described, should be at liberty to have the cautions which were registered with the Land Registry against the property removed, that they be registered as legal proprietors, and that they should have their costs.
It was that notice of motion, and other matters, which came before Mr. Justice Vinelott on 30th June 1989 and which forms the subject matter of the proceedings before this court. A motion by Professor Hines to set aside the order of Master Gowers giving leave to join the purchasers as defendants also came before Mr. Justice Vinelott. He dismissed the appeal from Master Gowers. On the application by motion by the second and third defendants Mr. Justice Vinelott ordered that the cautions registered against the property should be removed and further that the second and third defendants should be registered as the legal proprietors (bundle, page 12).
Professor Hines sought to appeal against Mr. Justice Vinelott's order. His application came before Lord Justice Dillon on 11th August 1989. The learned Lord Justice did three things. First, he refused the application for leave to...
To continue reading
Request your trial