Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
Swift 1st v Chief Land Registrar  EWCA Civ 330
Mrs Rani owned and occupied a property. Unbeknownst to her in April 2006n an unknown party executed a charge over the property in favour of GE Money Lending Limited (GE) for a supposed loan of £32k to Mrs rani. The charge was registered.
In May 2006 a further fraudulent charge was registered in favour of Swift for £64k who paid GE £34k and the balance to Mrs Rani who never received the money. The charge to Swift was registered. Interest instalments on the loan were
not paid and in May 2007 proceedings were commenced against Mrs Rani for possession. She defended the proceedings on the basis that both the GE and Swift charges were fraudulent. Swift accepted this and a consent order was made in January 2009
directing the land registry to delete the entry of the charges on the register. Swift then brought a claim against the Land Registry for indemnity under LRA 2002, Sch 8 for its loss. The High Court decided Swift was entitled to an indemnity. The
Registrar appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The issues on appeal were:
The Court of Appeal found that Swift was entitled to an indemnity from the land registry dismissed the Registrar’s appeal. Swift was entitled to an indemnity as it was deemed to have suffered loss from the cancellation of the charge in the registry
as if the charge had not been forged. Mrs Rani’s overriding interest could not defeat the claim.
Interestingly, the Court did indeed hold that Malory was decided per incuriam. This seemed to be driven by questions of policy and practicality as much as black letter law, with the Court citing concerns about the effect of Malory on the integrity
of the title register and the facilitation of e-conveyancing.
0330 161 1234