This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Gold Harp Properties v MacLeod [2015] 1 WLR 124

By Oxbridge Law TeamUpdated 07/01/2024 21:07

Judgement for the case Gold Harp Properties v MacLeod

KEY POINTS

  • The phrase "for the future" means that if interest B was registered after the mistake but before it's corrected, and it would normally have higher priority, that priority can't be changed.

  • Stated otherwise, one can't change existing priorities when they’re already in the situation paragraph 8 aims to address.

  • Once the rectification is done, there are no more competing priorities. Any changes in priorities would involve interests that were already established.

FACTS

  • The property in question is a three-story house with a roofspace that was never converted for use. It was initially purchased by a group of teachers in 1988, including Mr. and Mrs. Jessel and the Claimants, with plans to convert it into flats for autistic children. Leases were created for these flats, with the Claimants becoming tenants of the roofspace.

  • Over time, Mr. Grahame Ralph, a property developer, acquired the lower floors of the property from Mr. and Mrs. Jessel and converted them into flats. The Claimants retained ownership of the roofspace.

  • Mr. Ralph aimed to acquire the roofspace without compensation to the Claimants. His son, Matthew Ralph, acquired the property's freehold in 2009. There were issues with ground rent payments, leading to a claimed re-entry and planning permission application. The Claimants, unaware of these actions, later attempted to pay the rent.

  • In 2009, Matthew Ralph falsely claimed that the Claimants' leases were forfeited due to re-entry and made a statutory declaration to this effect. This resulted in the removal of references to the Claimants' leases from the Land Registry. A new lease for the roofspace was granted to Insignia Property Ltd and later assigned to other companies, all controlled by Mr. Ralph.

JUDGEMENT

  • Appeal dismissed.

COMMENTARY

  • The case emphasizes the importance of the court order as the crucial turning point for the reinstated interest holder.

  • This doctrine keeps property law consistent and foreseeable. It guarantees that parties with conflicting interests are safeguarded and are not unexpectedly placed at a disadvantage when a previously ignored interest is reestablished.

Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch

For Further Study on Gold Harp Properties v MacLeod

Land Law Notes
987 total pages
1291 purchased


Land Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambr...

Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.

Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️

Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.

Get Started
Claim every advantage to get a first in law
Land Law Notes
987 total pages
1291 purchased


Land Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambr...