Key Facts
- •Mr. Donovan's brother transferred the freehold of 34-36 Prescott Place to Mr. Batin without prior offer notices under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.
- •Mr. Donovan claimed a beneficial interest in the property via a trust deed, later found to be backdated.
- •Tenants served a purchase notice under section 12B of the 1987 Act, leading to County Court proceedings and a section 19 order.
- •Mr. Donovan did not participate in the County Court or First-Tier Tribunal proceedings until much later.
- •Mr. Batin granted Mr. Donovan leases after the section 19 order, which were unregistered and equitable.
- •The Tenants sought injunctions against Mr. Donovan and Mr. Batin to prevent the registration of the leases and the sale of the flats.
Legal Principles
Abuse of process (Henderson v Henderson)
Henderson v Henderson 1843 3 Hare 100; Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1; Dexter v Vlieland Boddy [2003] EWCA Civ 14; Aldi Stores v WSP Group Plc [2008] 1 WLR 748
Effect of a section 19 order under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987
Jones v Mahmut [2017] EWCA Civ 2362, [2018] 1 WLR 6051
Creation of equitable interests in land
Law of Property Act 1925, section 4(1); Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd v Scott [2014] UKSC 52, [2015] AC 385; National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth [1965] AC 1175; Re Cary-Elwes’ Contract [1906] 2 Ch 143
High Court jurisdiction to grant injunctions
Convoy Collateral Ltd v Broad Idea International Ltd [2021] UKPC 24, [2023] AC 389; Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 45, [2024] 2 WLR 45
Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, sections 1, 4, 5, 10A, 12A-12D, 13, 19, 52; Schedule 1, paragraph 2
Landlord and Tenant Act 1987
Land Registration Act 2002, section 7(2)(b), 28, 32(3)
Land Registration Act 2002
Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2011] AC 304
Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2011] AC 304
Outcomes
Appeal allowed on grounds 1, 2(i), and 2(iii).
The judge erred in finding an abuse of process, incorrectly determined that the section 19 order created an equitable interest, and improperly granted injunctions.
Injunctions set aside.
The judge's decision was based on erroneous conclusions regarding equitable interest and priority. The Tenants failed to utilize statutory mechanisms to protect their position.