England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO RE-INSTATE
WITH APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO
APPEAL TO FOLLOW IF REINSTATEMENT GRANTED

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Friday, 22nd February 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE JONATHAN PARKER: This is an application by Mr Robert Hancock, the claimant in action, for permission to appeal against an order made by His Honour Judge Moseley QC on 1 March 2001. By his order the judge dismissed Mr Hancock's claim for rectification of the register of title at HM Land Registry relating to properties at 20 and 20A Beaufort Street, Brynmawr. The register of title shows Mr Hancock to be the registered proprietor of 20A Beaufort Street, and a Ms Woods to be the registered proprietor of 20 Beaufort Street. Mr Hancock is represented on this application by Miss Elizabeth Connor.
2. The background to the matter is as follows. No 20 Beaufort Street consists of a shop with a flat above. No 20A Beaufort Street, also known as Blewitt House, consists of a flat on the ground floor with a bedsitting room on the first floor. No 20A was constructed on land which formed part of No 20. Prior to the events with which the present action is concerned, both No 20 and No 20A were included in a single title at the Land Registry. Prior to April 1996, the registered proprietor of Nos 20 and 20A was a Mr Robert Fowler. In April 1996, Mr Fowler was made bankrupt, and the property, that is to say Nos 20 and 20A, thereupon vested in his trustee in bankruptcy, a Mr Mitchell. Mr Fowler was anxious that the property should not be sold by the trustee in bankruptcy on the open market, without any prospect of Mr Fowler ever becoming the owner of it again. Accordingly, he introduced Ms Woods, a friend of his, to the trustee in bankruptcy, with a view to Ms Woods purchasing the whole of the property from the trustee. A valuation of the property was duly obtained, which showed, according to the judge's findings, the value of Nos 20 and 20A to be £52,000. I shall have to return to the question of valuation later in this judgment. Miss Woods duly purchased the whole of the property from the trustee in bankruptcy, using moneys lent to Mr Fowler by Mr Hancock.
3. Mr Hancock's case is that on or about 15 April 1989 it was agreed between him, Mr Fowler and Ms Woods that, in satisfaction of thedebt owed to Mr Hancock, Ms Woods would transfer to Mr Hancock the title to the whole of the property, that is to say Nos 20 and 20A (No 20A being by then partially completed). It is indeed common ground that a Transfer of that date was executed by Ms Woods whereby she transferred the entirety of the property to Mr Hancock. Thereafter a Transfer was registered at HM Land Registry whereby Mr Hancock purportedly transferred No 20 back to Ms Woods. That led to separate title numbers being attributed at the land Registry to Nos 20 and 20A. As matters stood at the date of trial, therefore Mr Hancock was the registered proprietor of No 20A whereas Ms Woods was the registered proprietor of No 20. In the action Mr Hancock claims that his purported signature on the Transfer which transferred No 20 back to Ms Woods was a forgery and he seeks a declaration that he is entitled to be registered as proprietor of No 20 in addition to his registered proprietorship of No 20A. He, further, seeks a declaration that Ms Woods holds No 20 on trust for him pending his registration as sole proprietor.
4. By her Defence Ms Woods alleges that her agreement with Mr Hancock was for the transfer to Mr Hancock only of No 20A, with No 20 remaining in her ownership. She accordingly contends that the respective registers of title relating to No 20 and No 20A at the Land Registry show the true position in relation to the ownership of Nos 20 and 20A in accordance with the intentions of herself, Mr Fowler and Mr Hancock.
5. In his judgment the judge found that the agreement between Ms Woods and Mr Hancock was in the terms alleged by Ms Woods, that is to say, that in satisfaction of the debt owed by Mr Fowler to Mr Hancock, Mr Hancock should take No 20A, leaving No. 20 in the ownership of Ms Woods. As the judge put it at page 13 letter D of his judgment:

"The conclusion I reach in those circumstances is that the intention of the parties was, on a balance of probabilities, formed at a meeting in the top flat towards the end of 1998 and that the intention was that Mr Hancock should become the owner of the block of flats only, Blewitt House. He has become the owner of the block of flats and therefore title reposes at present ..... in the correct destinations."

6. The judge also found that Mr Hancock's purported signature to the Transfer of No 20A back to Ms Woods was a forgery. He made a similar finding in relation to other Transfers to which I need not make further reference. He made no finding as to who was responsible for those forgeries. Nonetheless, given his finding as to the intentions of the parties, he concluded that the respective registers of title reflected the true position in relation to the ownership of Nos 20 and 20A. On that footing he dismissed Mr Hancock's claim, declining to exercise his statutory discretion to vary the registered entries.
7. In support of the application for permission to appeal, Miss Connor has put forward one ground only. It relates to the matter of valuation of Nos 20 and 20A. She informs me that Mr Hancock wishes to adduce evidence to the effect that the value of No 20A at the time of the agreement was far lower than the valuation used at trial and in fact it was in the region of £15,000 to £20,000. She submits that if this evidence is adduced and is accepted it will, or may, undermine the judge's findings of fact as to the intentions of the parties in relation to the extent of the property to be transferred to Mr Hancock in satisfaction of the debt. She cannot put forward any satisfactory reason why such evidence, if it be available, was not adduced at trial. Mr Hancock was represented at trial by counsel, but not Miss Connor. Miss Connor has told me that she has been instructed by Mr Hancock that he raised with his counsel the question whether evidence of valuation should be adduced, but, in the event, no such evidence was adduced. Accordingly, the judge proceeded on the basis of the valuation before him, to which I referred earlier in this judgment, in the sum of £52,000.
8. Miss Connor submits, accordingly, that there is a real prospect that if such evidence is adduced the proposed appeal will succeed. On that basis she invites me to accede to the present application.
9. In my judgment however there can be no good reason why such evidence, if indeed it was available, was not adduced at trial. I can see no prospect of the requirements in that respect, as laid down in Ladd v Marshall, being fulfilled. The issue was fairly and squarely before the judge, and he made his findings of fact on the evidence before him. Those findings seem to me to be unassailable in the Court of Appeal. Nor can I see any basis for challenging the exercise of the judge's discretion in declining to make any alteration in the registered titles.
10. Accordingly - despite Miss Connor's helpful submissions, and I am confident that there is nothing more that could be said in support of the present application - I take the view that the proposed appeal has no real prospect of success and, accordingly, I dismiss this application.
Order: Application dismissed