England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE STAFFORD COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Rubery)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Wednesday, 7th November 2001

Wednesday, 7th November 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE WARD: This is an application for permission to appeal orders made by His Honour Judge Rubery on 20th August 2001 when he dismissed Mr Lally's appeal from the order made by District Judge Rowley on 1st February 2001. The District Judge had struck out an application made by Mr Lally. It was an application in which he applied under the County Court Act 1984 and the Land Registration Act 1925 for rectification of the Land Register under section 82(2) of the Act.
2. Mr Lally states in the affidavit in support of that application that at various times way back in 1988 he sold his interest in the three properties concerned, Scotts Factory, 33A Marsh Street, 31 Lovatt Street and 6 Elm Court, to a company called Preston Investment Ltd. At the time the land was unregistered. The company appointed him and another under powers of attorney to deal with those properties, and he says that on 4th November 1988 the properties were sold to Mr Nye. But he says that Mr Nye failed to register the properties in his name, though he did register cautions against the first registration of those properties.
3. Mr Lally himself was made bankrupt in May 1989 and the trustee in bankruptcy obtained an order on 12th November 1990, made by His Honour Judge Gibbs QC, as he then was, in which it was ordered and declared that the three properties be vested in Mr Hunt as trustee of Mr Lally. Mr Lally has apparently conducted a campaign against the Lands Registry to correct the title of those properties. The Lands Registry apparently told him in April that there was no evidence of his having a proprietary interest in title SF 326356 and that he was not entitled to copies of documents relating to that title. There was evidence of a proprietary interest in his name in respect of the other two title numbers and that, on payment of the fees, copies would be sent. But apparently Mr Lally has not obtained the office copies. He sought to persuade the Lands Registry to correct the Register and remove his name from it, but the Lands Registry wrote back on 5th May saying:

"As I pointed out, registration in respect of the titles quoted by you have been correctly carried out, correct procedures have been followed and the correct proprietors have been registered. There are, consequently, no grounds for rectification."

4. The District Judge was satisfied that there was no reasonable ground for bringing the claim. It was accordingly struck out under Part 3.4 of the Civil Procedure Rules. But he gave permission to appeal. Judge Rubery hearing the appeal could, likewise, find no good reason for the court ordering the rectification that Mr Lally seeks.
5. In order successfully to bring this application Mr Lally has to persuade this court on a second appeal that an important point of principle or practice arises. He has been unable to demonstrate that it does, nor can he show there is any compelling reason for this court to take the matter further.
6. On the merits of the appeal I share the views of the District Judge and the Circuit Judge that this is a hopeless application. Accordingly, I refuse permission to appeal. The application is therefore dismissed.
Order: Application dismissed.