000			01351cam a2200217 4500
001			ABS63345
008			000000n2000 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u110307
245			_aDean v Dean and others
260			_c2000
490			_aProperty and Compensation Reports _v80(5) 2000, 457-465(9)
520			_aCA 15 June 2000. A property purchased by D was given to the care of a Gibraltar company. Subsequently the wife of D and others fraudulently had the property transferred to a different company. On discovering the fraud, D claimed damages against the defendants and also an indemnity from the Chief Land Registrar, the fifth defendant, under the Land Registration Act 1925 s83. The judge applied the 'but for' argument and decided that D had failed to take proper care of his property. The appeal was allowed as it was decided that the judge was wrong to have applied the 'but for' test in this case - it would not be sufficient for ascertaining whether the failures of D were the sole cause of his loss or whether the fraud was a contributory cause of the loss. Held, appeal allowed.
590			_aABS
650			_aLAND REGISTRATION ACT 1925 S83
650			_aFRAUD
650			_aLAND REGISTRATION
650			_aProperty management _96262
650			_aINDEMNITY
690			_aPROPERTY AND LAND LAW-CASE LAW
942			_n0
999			_c65782 _d65782