Swift 1st Ltd v Chief Land Registrar [2015] Ch 602

KEY POINTS

• If someone, who is the rightful owner of a registered property or charge, claims ownership in good faith based on a forged document, and the official property register is corrected to remove that false claim, they are considered to have suffered a loss as if the forged document had never existed.

FACTS

• Mrs. Rani is the registered owner of a property, and fraudulent charges were placed on her property by unknown individuals.

  • One charge was from GE Money, and another was from Swift, which also covered the repayment of the GE Money charge.

  • Swift later initiated possession proceedings against Mrs. Rani when she couldn't pay the interest on the loan.

• Mrs. Rani defended the proceedings by claiming that both charges were forgeries, and Swift agreed to this. As a result, a consent order was issued to remove Swift's charge from the property's registered title.

• Swift then sought indemnity from the Land Registry for the loss of its charge. The Land Registry argued that the removal of Swift's entry was not rectification but merely an update to reflect the correct state of affairs.

• The Land Registry contended that Swift wasn't prejudiced because Mrs. Rani, as the registered owner and occupant, had the right to challenge the fraudulent charges.

• This made Swift's charge subject to her rights and liable to be defeated if she contested it as a forgery.

JUDGEMENT

• Registrar’s appeal dismissed.

COMMENTARY

• This case sheds light on the legal complexities surrounding property registration, rectification, and indemnity claims.

• It underscores the legal mechanisms in place to protect parties who have genuinely suffered losses due to mistakes or fraudulent activities in property registration processes.