Trehan & others v Ruffy
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Patten |
| Judgment Date | 02 December 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWCA Civ 1422 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: B2/2009/1535 |
| Date | 02 December 2009 |
[2009] EWCA Civ 1422
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM CENTRAL LONDON CIVIL JUSTICE CENTRE
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE WAKEFIELD)
Before: LORD JUSTICE PATTEN
Case No: B2/2009/1535
Mr Jonathan Ferris (instructed by Nationwide Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
THE RESPONDENT DID NOT ATTEND AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED.
This is an application for permission to appeal against a decision of HHJ Wakefield. It raises a short point about the date to be applied in determining whether a purchaser of registered land becomes bound by an overriding interest in the form of a right of rectification. The judge found that the Trehans and Mr Chopra bought the freehold of the premises of 120–122 and 124–126 High Street, Barkingside, in the mistaken belief that they included the storage areas at the rear which were included in the leases of the ground floor to commercial tenants. This mistake was shared, according to the judge's findings, by the vendors, Barkingside Properties Limited. In fact those areas were not included in the plan attached to the auction particulars or, as a consequence, in the registered titles of the compled purchases. On these facts the claim to rectify the contracts and the transfers against Barkingside would have succeeded, but at the same auction the respondent, Mr Ruffy, purchased Lot 129, which included the rear storage areas. The appellants completed their purchases on 16 April 2002. The respondent completed his purchase on 23 April 2002. He was eventually registered as proprietor of the disputed land on 10 April 2003.
At the trial the appellant sought to enforce the rights of rectification against Mr Ruffy as Barkingside's successor in title by relying on section 70(1)(g) of the Land Registration Act 1925. This provides that a registered disposition of land will be overridden by:
“The rights of every person in actual occupation of the land or in receipt of the rents and profits thereof, save where enquiry is made of such person and the rights are not disclosed.”
The appellants say that from 2 June 2002 they were clearly in receipt of rent from the tenants of the ground floor premises and that their rights of rectification became binding on Mr Ruffy as overriding interests when he came to be registered as proprietor of the storage areas in April 200But the judge held that the material date for testing the application of section 70(1)(g) was the completion date of Mr Ruffy's purchase in April 2002 and not the later date of registration. Although the equity will take effect as an overriding interest on registration, the person seeking to enforce it must have been in actual occupation or in receipt of the rents and profits prior to completion of the respondent's purchase. On that basis the judge held that the appellants could not bring themselves within section...
To continue reading
Request your trial