Isaaks v Charlton Triangle Homes Ltd

A written lease may be rectified where strong evidence establishes that it fails to record the parties’ common intention. The ordinary civil standard applies, although the evidence must overcome the weighty presumption arising from a signed formal document.

An error copied from an incorrect lease into the land register remains a mistake in the register. It is not limited to an official error made during registration. Where the court finds a mistake in the register, alteration is generally required under rule 126 of the Land Registration Rules 2003, subject to exceptional circumstances and the provisions concerning rectification.

The claimant sought rectification of a lease and alteration of the registered titles relating to a flat. The lease and register described the flat as being on the third floor, although the parties had contracted for, and occupied, the flat on the second floor.

The lessor consented to the proposed rectification and did not contest the claim. The Land Registry had rejected an application to amend the register, considering that the lease had been correctly registered and that a surrender and regrant was required. The issues were whether the lease should be rectified, whether the claimant had standing despite the original lessees not being parties, and whether the register should be altered.

1. Jurisdiction. The amendment to CPR Practice Direction 2B effective from 6 April 2015 gave a Chancery master jurisdiction to determine a claim for rectification of a lease and the land register.
2. Rectification. Leases, like other written contracts and multiparty documents, may be rectified where the written terms do not accord with the parties’ true agreement. The claimant established, well beyond the ordinary civil standard, that the common intention was to lease Flat 7 on the second floor. The deed of rectification and the surrounding documentation provided strong and irrefragable evidence of the mistake.
3. Standing and non-joinder. The original lessees were potential witnesses but did not need to be joined. Their equity of rectification was capable of passing with their estate in the land to the claimant under section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925. There was no evidence that it had been excluded from the sale.
4. Alteration of the register. The incorrect description in the lease had been reproduced in the register. That remained a mistake in the register, even though the Registry had copied the lease accurately and had made no procedural error. Lannion v Baxter [2011] EWCA Civ 120 confirmed that mistake was not confined to official mistakes made in dealing with an application.
5. Paragraph 2(1)(a) of Schedule 4 to the Land Registration Act 2002 conferred power to alter the register to correct a mistake. Rule 126(1) of the Land Registration Rules 2003 made alteration mandatory where there was a mistake in the register, subject to exceptional circumstances and the exclusion for rectification. Those qualifications did not apply. Alteration was also required to bring the register up to date after rectification.
6. The lease was rectified by changing references to a third-floor flat to references to a second-floor flat. The leasehold and freehold registers were ordered to be altered accordingly, with the deed of rectification noted.