Cam Askan v HM Land Registry

Under Land Registration Act 2002, rectification requires a mistake in the register which prejudicially affects a registered proprietor’s title. A purchaser of a registered title acquires the title as registered, not every parcel within an earlier root of title. General boundaries on a title plan do not determine the exact boundary and their correction does not necessarily constitute rectification. A provisional title created while an adverse-possession application is referred for determination does not alter a neighbouring registered title.

Summary judgment or strike out is appropriate where documentary evidence shows that a claim has no real prospect of success, discloses no reasonable grounds, or is abusive. Serious allegations do not themselves provide a compelling reason for trial. Claims of misfeasance must be coherently pleaded and supported by particularised facts capable of establishing bad faith.

Mr Cam Askan brought proceedings against HM Land Registry concerning the registered title to Old Bank Buildings. He alleged that the register had been altered unlawfully, that a provisional title relating to adjoining land was void, and that he was entitled to rectification, indemnity, damages and declarations based on the Land Registration Act 2002, public-law duties, misfeasance and Article 1 of Protocol 1.

HM Land Registry applied for reverse summary judgment or strike out. Mr Askan applied to strike out that application and sought stays relating to separate proceedings concerning adjoining land. The central issues were whether his registered title had changed or contained a rectifiable mistake, and whether his claims had any real prospect of success or disclosed reasonable grounds.

The Defendant’s Application succeeded. Parts of the claim were struck out and reverse summary judgment was granted on the balance. The Claimant’s Application was dismissed.

1. Registered title and rectification. Section 58 of the Land Registration Act 2002 makes the registered title conclusive as to the legal estate vested by registration. Mr Askan acquired the extent of title registered in 2010 and transferred to him in 2019. The earlier 1908 conveyances did not enlarge that registered title because HSBC had applied to register only the land shown on its plan.
2. Boundaries and alteration. Under section 60, title-plan boundaries are general boundaries unless specifically determined. Plotting lines used to depict an undefined general boundary have no legal significance. The proposed survey-based updates were not, in any event, rectification because they would merely show an existing general boundary more accurately.
3. Schedule 4. Rectification requires both a mistake and prejudice to a registered proprietor’s title. No mistake had been shown in the registration of Mr Askan’s title, and HM Land Registry had not altered it. Any claim affecting the Club’s title would require the Club to be involved. The AP Land remained subject to the First-tier Tribunal’s determination, and its provisional title number did not create a registered title or alter Mr Askan’s title.
4. Schedule 8 and public-law claims. Without a mistake whose correction would involve rectification, there was no basis for indemnity. Any claim properly characterised as judicial review had been brought in the wrong forum and outside the applicable time limits. The ultra vires and Article 1 of Protocol 1 claims were likewise hopeless.
5. Misfeasance. The claim did not particularise facts capable of establishing either targeted malice or knowledge of lack of power together with probable injury. The alleged conduct was consistent with lawful administration and did not support an inference of bad faith. The claim was therefore hopeless, unwinnable and suitable for strike out under CPR 3.4(2)(a).
6. Summary judgment and abuse. The court could assess the documentary evidence without conducting a mini-trial. No additional evidence identified by Mr Askan would alter the claim’s complexion. The proceedings were also abusive insofar as they sought to circumvent or collaterally attack the Wrexham proceedings and short-circuit the FTT proceedings without joining the directly affected parties.
7. The applications to stay the FTT proceedings and enforcement relating to the Wrexham proceedings were refused. Any such applications should be made in the relevant proceedings on notice to the affected parties.

First-instance decision. The judgment records related proceedings in the Wrexham County Court and before the First-tier Tribunal, but this claim was not an appeal from either proceeding.