Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v (1) Olympia Homes Limited (2) Transco Plc (3) Westpac Banking Corporation (4) National Westminster Bank Plc (5) Alan Hughes
Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v (1) Olympia Homes Limited (2) Transco Plc (3) Westpac Banking Corporation (4) National Westminster Bank Plc (5) Alan Hughes
- 2005
[2005] EWHC 1235 (Ch), 17 June 2005. Claimant (S) sought rectification of the land register to delete the title of the first defendant (O) to a plot of land or to ensure that the land was subject to an option in favour of S. Second defendant (T) had sold the unregistered land to fifth defendant (H), who entered into a deed of novation with S to make available part of the land to construct a roundabout. H's application for compulsory registration of the land was cancelled and third defendant (W) obtained a charging order over H's interest in the land and sold the land to O. S failed to justify its claim (as the Land Registry required) that its option under the deed of novation bound O. O was registered as proprietor to the freehold title to the land free from S's interest under the option. "Held": the option provision in the deed of novation gave rise to an equitable interest. The Land Registry had mistakenly registered O as the owner of the legal estate. O had at all material times believed that S was entitled to some of the land and under Sched 4 para 3.2(b) it was unjust not to rectify the register so as to register the option. Order made rectifying the register to record the claimant's rights under the deed of novation so far as they give rise to an enforceable estate contract. (See also L130446).
SAINSBURYS SUPERMARKETS LTD V OLYMPIA HOMES LTD AND OTHERS
LAND REGISTRATION RULES 1925
LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY CO LTD V GOMM
LAND CHARGES ACT 1972
LONDON AND BLENHEIM ESTATES V LADBROKE RETAIL PARKS LTD
PEARCE V WATTS
LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925
HORRILL AND OTHERS V COOPER
JAMES HAY PENSION TRUSTEES LTD V COOPER ESTATES LTD
England and Wales--1543-
[2005] EWHC 1235 (Ch), 17 June 2005. Claimant (S) sought rectification of the land register to delete the title of the first defendant (O) to a plot of land or to ensure that the land was subject to an option in favour of S. Second defendant (T) had sold the unregistered land to fifth defendant (H), who entered into a deed of novation with S to make available part of the land to construct a roundabout. H's application for compulsory registration of the land was cancelled and third defendant (W) obtained a charging order over H's interest in the land and sold the land to O. S failed to justify its claim (as the Land Registry required) that its option under the deed of novation bound O. O was registered as proprietor to the freehold title to the land free from S's interest under the option. "Held": the option provision in the deed of novation gave rise to an equitable interest. The Land Registry had mistakenly registered O as the owner of the legal estate. O had at all material times believed that S was entitled to some of the land and under Sched 4 para 3.2(b) it was unjust not to rectify the register so as to register the option. Order made rectifying the register to record the claimant's rights under the deed of novation so far as they give rise to an enforceable estate contract. (See also L130446).
SAINSBURYS SUPERMARKETS LTD V OLYMPIA HOMES LTD AND OTHERS
LAND REGISTRATION RULES 1925
LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY CO LTD V GOMM
LAND CHARGES ACT 1972
LONDON AND BLENHEIM ESTATES V LADBROKE RETAIL PARKS LTD
PEARCE V WATTS
LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925
HORRILL AND OTHERS V COOPER
JAMES HAY PENSION TRUSTEES LTD V COOPER ESTATES LTD
England and Wales--1543-