Clark and another v Chief Land Registrar and another; Chancery plc v Ketteringham
Language: English Series: All England Law Reports ; (1994) 4 AllER 96-108(7)Publication details: 1994Subject(s): Summary: CA 5 May 1994. In both cases a caution was registered with the Land Registry to protect an interest in property. Charges were subsequently entered on the register. When dispute arose it was contended that the caution should take precedence over the subsequently registered charge, the first plaintiff relying on the Land Registration Act 1925 s55 and rule 218 of the associated Rules. The court disagreed, declaring there was no entitlement to assert priority, and the defendants` appeals were dismissed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | X1708 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 18821-1001 |
CA 5 May 1994. In both cases a caution was registered with the Land Registry to protect an interest in property. Charges were subsequently entered on the register. When dispute arose it was contended that the caution should take precedence over the subsequently registered charge, the first plaintiff relying on the Land Registration Act 1925 s55 and rule 218 of the associated Rules. The court disagreed, declaring there was no entitlement to assert priority, and the defendants` appeals were dismissed.