HC, 18 October 2005. Concerns whether a claim for rectification of the land register under the Land Registration Act 1925 s82 was precluded by s82(3) of the Act because the claimant had caused or substantially contributed to the error or omission by fraud or lack of care or because it would be unjust not to rectify the register against the proprietor in possession. Claimant (N) was the registered proprietor of a leasehold. First defendant (M) fraudulently transferred the ownership of the flat in 2001 so as to become the registered proprietor but N did not take any action against M. M later executed a transfer to the second defendant who purported to grant a charge to the third defendant's bank by way of mortgage. N applied for rectification of the land register under s82 of the Act and issued proceeding to get the fraudulent transfer voided. The second and third defendants counterclaimed that they were entitled to be registered as proprietors and charge respectively. "Held": claim dismissed and declarations granted. A proprietor registered on the basis of a void or voidable transaction might still transfer a valid title but the court had the discretion to order rectification where it was proper to do so having regard to the balance of equities between the parties.