Oak Co-operative Building Society v Blackburn

Registration of an estate contract under the Land Charges Act 1925 is not invalid merely because the registered name differs from the estate owner’s formal name. Where the name used is fairly recognisable as a version of the vendor’s full name, the registration may remain effective against a party who makes no official search or searches under the wrong name. The statutory scheme should operate in a sensible and practical way. An official search should ordinarily use the name appearing on the title, while a personal searcher receives no equivalent protection from a missed entry. A valid registration gives a subsequent chargee deemed actual notice; an ineffective registration may leave the estate contract void against that chargee.

Blackburn agreed informally to sell a house to Mrs Caines by instalments. She registered the resulting estate contract as a Class C(iv) land charge against Blackburn using the name “Frank David”, although his formal name was “Francis David”. Oak Co-operative Building Society later took a legal mortgage and obtained an order for possession against Mrs Caines.

The appeal concerned whether the registration was effective under the Land Charges Act 1925, despite the difference between “Frank” and “Francis”, and whether the later mortgagee was protected by the statutory consequences of ineffective registration.

The Court of Appeal, in a single judgment delivered by Lord Justice Russell, allowed the appeal with costs here and below.

1. Statutory framework. A Class C(iv) estate contract had to be registered in the name of the estate owner under section 10(2) of the Land Charges Act 1925. If registration was effective, section 198(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 deemed a subsequent chargee to have actual notice. If it was ineffective, section 199(1)(i) of that Act and section 13(2) of the Land Charges Act protected the chargee and rendered the estate contract void against it.
2. Meaning of the registered name. The statutory requirement should be applied so that the registration system worked in a sensible and practical manner. Registration was not a nullity merely because the vendor’s formal Christian name was “Francis” while the registration used “Frank”. “Frank” was capable of being fairly described as a version of the vendor’s full name, even though it was also a name in its own right and might not be discovered by a search using the formal name.
3. Official and personal searches. An official search should ordinarily be requested against the name or names appearing on the title. The statutory conclusiveness of an official certificate did not require the court to invalidate a registration against a party who had made no effective official search or had searched under the wrong name. A personal searcher who missed an entry did not obtain the protection given by section 17(3) of the Land Charges Act.
4. Application. Mrs Caines had registered the contract in a recognisable version of Blackburn’s name. Oak had not made an effective official search and could also have investigated the discrepancies in the mortgage transaction or inspected the property, where Mrs Caines was in occupation. The court’s conclusion was not based on the earlier lis pendens authority, 1920 2 Chancery 474, which concerned different legislation and rules.
5. Orders. The possession order and declaration were discharged. It was declared that the registration was effective. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

• Court of Appeal: Allowed the appeal from the order of Mr Justice Ungoed-Thomas, discharged the declaration and order for possession, declared the registration effective, and refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
• High Court: Ordered possession against Mrs Caines in the mortgagee’s proceedings.