Gold Harp Properties Ltd v Macleod & Ors
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE RICHARDS
- LORD JUSTICE UNDERHILL
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves an appeal by Gold Harp Properties and Mr. Ralph junior against a lower court's order to rectify the Land Registry, reinstating the Claimants' titles over a property in North Kensington. The appeal raised issues primarily about whether rectification can operate retrospectively and whether there were exceptional circumstances to justify not rectifying the Register. The court upheld the lower court's decision, emphasizing the importance of correcting mistakes fully, including altering priorities between competing interests, and finding no exceptional circumstances to deny rectification.
Judgment
Lord Justice Underhill :
INTRODUCTION AND OUTLINE FACTS
This is an appeal against a decision of HHJ Gerald, dated 24 May 2013, in the Central London County Court, requiring the alteration of Land Registry titles relating to a property in North Kensington known as 72-74 St. Quintin Avenue, London W10 (“the Property”). Mr Philip Brown appears for the Appellant, and Ms Kerry Bretherton and Mr Robert Bowker for the Respondents. In order to explain the order which the Judge made, and the issues raised by the appeal, I need first to give an outline of the facts.
The Property consists of a three-storey house. Freehold title is registered under number BGL70889. The top floor, which has been referred to in these proceedings as “the roofspace”, has never been converted for occupation.
The Property was acquired in 1988 by a group of teachers – a Mr and Mrs Jessel and the First and Second Claimants, Mr Byrne and Mr Briars (to whom I will refer as “the Claimants”, though in fact their attorneys are also formally parties), with a view to its redevelopment into four flats – one each on the ground and first floors and two in the roofspace – which would provide teaching and accommodation facilities for autistic children. Four 135-year leases were created accordingly, the two Claimants each becoming tenant of half of the roofspace, for which they each paid £29,950.
By a sequence of events into which I need not go, Mr and Mrs Jessel lost the title to the two lower floors, which were in 1999 acquired by a company owned and controlled by a Mr Grahame Ralph, the Fifth Defendant, who is a property developer. Those floors were converted into four flats. The Claimants retained title to their respective parts of the roofspace, which were designated as “flats 5 and 6”. As part of that sequence of events fresh leases were entered into in 2000 in respect of those flats, with terms of 135 years running from 1988. The registered titles were numbers BGL36978 (flat 6) and BGL36979 (flat 5). Both leases were entered on the schedule of notices of leases relating to the freehold title (i.e. BGL 70889), to which I will refer as “the Leases Schedule”.
The roofspace continued unoccupied and unconverted. The Claimants work, and live for most of the time, in Africa; but their interests were represented by agents in London. Mr Ralph coveted the opportunity to develop the top floor. On the Judge’s findings – which indeed reflect his own candid admissions in evidence – he orchestrate