Das v Das & Anor

Where an appeal concerning land registration depends on the outcome of related substantive proceedings, the proceedings should ordinarily be managed together. The appeal may be adjourned or transferred so that the substantive dispute is determined first, where its outcome will necessarily determine the appeal. Case-management views expressed without hearing argument on the merits are provisional and do not bind the trial judge.

The appellant challenged an adjudicator’s decision made in favour of the respondents concerning registration of a transfer of property and cancellation of a caution. The adjudicator had directed proceedings under section 118 of the Land Registration Act 2002, but was not told that the appellant had already commenced related proceedings claiming a beneficial interest in the property.

The court had not heard argument on the merits of the appeal. It considered the relationship between the appeal and the earlier proceedings, the possible application of res judicata or estoppel, and appropriate case management directions.

1. The appeal was not determined on its merits. The court expressly stated that its views were provisional and were not intended to have binding effect.

2. The appeal could not sensibly be disposed of separately from the related 2002 proceedings. The outcome of those proceedings would be decisive: if the appellant failed, the adjudicator’s decision would stand; if she succeeded, the decision should be set aside.

3. The related proceedings and all outstanding applications in them, together with the appeal, were transferred to the Central London County Court for determination. The appeal could be heard only by a High Court Judge, and could be adjourned until the related proceedings had been resolved.

4. The primary issue in the related proceedings was identified as whether res judicata or estoppel precluded the appellant from challenging the earlier consent order. The court did not decide that issue, but directed the filing of any further evidence, service of a defence, and consideration of any civil restraint order application.

5. The factual recital was to stand for the purposes of the related proceedings and the appeal unless challenged with supporting evidence. Costs of the appeal were reserved to the trial judge.

The judgment records an appeal from an adjudicator appointed by the Chief Land Registrar. The appeal was not substantively determined and was transferred, with related proceedings, to the Central London County Court for directions and determination.