Barons Finance Ltd., R (on the application of) v Chief Land Registrar

Judicial review is generally unsuitable where an adequate alternative remedy is available in civil proceedings. A claim concerning rectification of the Land Register or payment of an indemnity should be brought in the Chancery Division where that forum can determine disputed facts and permit the claimant to adduce evidence as of right. The availability of that remedy justified refusal of permission to challenge cancellation of a unilateral notice.

Barons Finance Ltd applied for permission to bring judicial review proceedings against the Chief Land Registrar. The company sought reinstatement of, and retrospective effect for, a unilateral notice registered against a property title, together with an order quashing its cancellation.

A single judge had refused permission. On renewal, the Administrative Court considered whether judicial review was appropriate where the claimant had an alternative claim in the Chancery Division for rectification of the Register and/or payment of an indemnity.

1. Renewed application refused. The challenge to the removal and cancellation of the unilateral notice was not suitable for judicial review.
2. The claimant had an adequate alternative remedy: a claim against the Chief Land Registrar in the Chancery Division for rectification of the Register and/or payment of an indemnity.
3. The alternative civil proceedings had a procedural advantage. The claimant could adduce the evidence it wished to rely on as of right, and any dispute of fact could be resolved in the customary manner through civil litigation.
4. The claimant’s reliance on protection of property under Article 1 of the First Protocol did not make judicial review appropriate. If the claimant had a valid claim, it could pursue it in the civil proceedings; if it did not, that issue could likewise be determined there.

A single judge had refused permission. The Administrative Court, on renewal, refused permission for judicial review.