Barclays Bank UK Plc v Shaun Richard Terry & Anor

Where registered charges have been discharged by mistake, the court may rescind the discharges and direct alteration of the register. Such an order is not a disposition, transfer, lease, charge or sub-charge for the purposes of restrictions on the register where construing it otherwise would conflict with the statutory duty to give effect to the court’s order. The meaning of an undefined statutory term depends on its context and the purpose of the provisions in which it appears. The court may also permit alternative methods of service where they are more likely to bring the application to the attention of interested parties, and may dispense with further service where reasonable steps have been exhausted.

The claimant had mistakenly discharged more than 5,000 registered legal charges because of an internal process error. Earlier directions divided the affected properties into categories. Summary judgment had already established, in the representative defendants’ case, that the relevant discharge occurred by mistake and should be rescinded, with the register corrected.

This hearing concerned 936 properties in Part 3, involving service on owners and interested parties, priority claimed over certain registered interests, unresolved objections, and the effect of restrictions on the register. The parties agreed the orders sought, subject to the court determining those issues.

The court made the orders sought and agreed by the defendants.

1. Service on owners. The evidence of service on the remaining Part 3 property owners was satisfactory. Titles affected by a problem with a batch of posted letters were removed for consideration under Parts 4 or 5.
2. Service on interested parties. Service at alternative addresses, including company, professional, regulatory and website addresses, was appropriate where those addresses were more likely to reach the relevant decision-maker than historic Land Registry addresses. Where letters sent to the available address were returned and no further address was known, the claimant had complied with the order and could not reasonably be expected to take further steps. In some cases where a supposed beneficiary could not be identified, service was dispensed with.
3. Priority. Following a comprehensive examination, and after agreed amendments to the Schedule, it was common ground that the claimant was entitled to the priority claimed under orders OO2 to OO9. Four titles affected by manorial rights were moved to OO1A, where no priority was claimed.
4. Meaning of disposition. Applying the contextual approach in Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure v Compton Beauchamp Estates [2002] UKSC 18, an undefined statutory term must be construed by reference to its context and the purpose of the relevant provisions. The rescission of the mistaken discharges and consequential alteration of the register could not sensibly be treated as a disposition, transfer, lease, charge or sub-charge triggering restrictions, because that would conflict with the duty to give effect to the court’s order.
5. The orders included agreed undertakings concerning compensation for proven loss and costs. The claimant also undertook not to add the costs of the proceedings or rectification work to borrowers’ mortgage accounts.