Joseph Donovan v Prescott Place Freeholder Limited & Others
[2024] EWCA Civ 298
Prescott Place Freeholder Limited & Ors v Constantin Batin & Anor
14 June 2023
[2023] EWHC 1445 (Ch)
High Court
A judge decided who owns a house after lots of sneaky stuff happened. Because someone tried to cheat, the judge said the rightful owner gets the house, and the cheaters can't do anything to stop it. The judge also let another person involved in the deal join the case.
Key Facts
- •Prescott Place Freeholder Ltd and others (Claimants) sued Constantin Batin and Joseph Donovan (Defendants) and Together First Commercial Finance Ltd (Interested Party).
- •The case concerned the ownership of a property following a series of transactions and legal proceedings.
- •The defendants provided untrue evidence regarding the dates of document execution.
- •A Section 19 Order required D1 to convey the freehold to C1.
- •D1 and D2 executed backdated Equitable Leases, attempting to devalue the property.
- •Together holds a first legal charge on the property.
- •The court determined whether the Section 19 Order created an interest in land and the priority of interests.
- •The Claimants sought injunctions to prevent D2 from registering the Equitable Leases or occupying the property.
Legal Principles
An 'interest in land' can only be created by someone with sufficient title and must be definable, identifiable, capable of assumption by third parties, and have permanence.
North East Property Buyers [2014] UKSC 52; National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth [1965] AC 1175
A contract for sale of land gives the purchaser an immediate equitable interest.
Re Cary-Elwes Contract [1906] 2 CH 143
Priority of competing equitable interests is determined by the order of creation (s28 LRA).
Halifax v Curry Popeck [2008] EWHC 1992; s28 of the LRA 2002
A perpetual injunction requires a justiciable right, a present cause of action, or unconscionable behaviour.
Snell’s Equity (34th Edition), paragraph 18-008; British Airways Board v Laker Airways Ltd [1985] 1 AC 58
The court has discretion to grant injunctions to prevent unconscionable conduct, even without a direct infringement of legal rights.
Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2011] 2 AC 304
Outcomes
The Section 19 Order constituted an interest in land from its creation.
It compelled a transfer of the freehold, similar to a contract for sale, despite the need for FTT determination on some terms. The availability of other statutory remedies against D1 or third parties doesn’t make C1’s rights purely personal.
C1's interest under the Section 19 Order takes priority over D2's interest under the Equitable Leases, even if protected by registration or actual occupation.
s28 LRA maintains the general law rule of priority by order of creation. s29 LRA doesn't negate this when interests are 'protected'.
Final injunctions were granted against D2, preventing him from registering the Equitable Leases, occupying the property, or otherwise acting to frustrate the Section 19 Order.
D1 and D2's conduct was unconscionable in attempting to frustrate the Section 19 Order. Damages would be inadequate compensation for the loss of an unencumbered freehold. The injunctions are a proportionate and equitable remedy.
Together First Commercial Finance Ltd's application to be joined as a party was allowed.
Together had legitimate interests in the outcome, particularly regarding the application of s12B(5) of the 1987 Act and the potential impact on its security interest.
Similar Cases
London Capital & Finance Plc (in Administration) & Ors v Michael Andrew Thomson & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1684 (Ch)
Nerijus Antuzis & Ors v DJ Houghton Catching Services Ltd & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1795 (Ch)
S Franses Limited & Anor v Block 6 Ashley Gardens Roof Gardens Limited & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2880 (Ch)
Maria Jesus El Massouri v Omani Estates Limited
[2024] EWHC 534 (Ch)