Sharon Barnard v Gwendolyn Ruth Brandon & Ors
[2023] EWHC 3043 (Ch)
John Baylis & Anor v Syed Ali Haider & Ors
1 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 187 (Ch)
High Court
A couple facing bankruptcy sold their house to avoid eviction. They thought they were getting a loan but actually sold it, signing papers they didn't fully understand. The judge said they knew what they were doing and let the sale stand, but the solicitors who helped them messed up and must pay back some money.
Key Facts
- •Claimants (Baylis and Kreuder) were joint proprietors of a property until Mr. Haider became the registered proprietor following a TR1 transfer.
- •Claimants sought to set aside the transaction due to non est factum or mistake, and rectify the register.
- •Edward Marshall Solicitors (Second Defendant) acted for the Claimants in the transaction and subsequently ceased to exist due to SRA intervention.
- •Together Commercial Finance Ltd (Third Defendant) provided a loan to Mr. Haider secured by a legal charge on the property.
- •The Claimants alleged that they were misled into signing the TR1 believing it was for an unsecured loan, not a sale.
- •Mr. Shah, a convicted fraudster, was involved in the transaction and exerted influence over Edward Marshall Solicitors.
- •The transaction was characterized by unconventional practices and significant levels of misrepresentation.
Legal Principles
Non est factum
Emmett on Title at 3.008 and Saunders v Anglia Building Society [1971] A.C. 1004 HL
Mistake (cross-purposes or unilateral)
Emmet on Title at 3-001 to 3-008
Rectification of the register under Schedule 4, LRA 2002
Land Registration Act 2002, Schedule 4
Unjust enrichment
FSMA 2000, sections 26 and 28
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
Overriding interest under LRA 2002, section 116
Land Registration Act 2002, section 116
Material alteration of a deed
Pigot's Case (1614) 11 Co. Rep. 26 and Raiffeisen Zentralbank v Crossseas Shipping Ltd [2000] 1 W.L.R. 1135
Void TR1 due to improper execution
R (Mercury) v HMRC [2008] EWHC 2721 (Admin)
Outcomes
Claim for non est factum dismissed.
Claimants knew they were signing a TR1 for a sale, even if they hoped for a quick reversal.
Claim for mistake dismissed.
Parties weren't at cross-purposes; the TR1 was voidable, not void, due to the mistake.
Rectification of the register refused.
Exceptional circumstances existed: Claimants benefited from the transaction, Mr. Haider faces liability, and the error was technical, not fraudulent.
Restitution claim dismissed.
Mr. Haider paid full value for the property.
FSMA 2000 claim dismissed.
Transaction not a sale and rent-back agreement; even if it were, enforcing it would be just and equitable given the circumstances.
Possession claim dismissed.
No tenancy agreement existed; monthly payments were for mortgage installments.
Claim against Edward Marshall partially successful.
Edward Marshall breached duty by failing to account for balance of purchase price and by failing to challenge LPI's excessive fees.
Claim against Together dismissed.
No overriding interest; exceptional circumstances justified not altering the register to remove the charge.