Cam Askan v HM Land Registry [2026] EWHC 1352 (Ch)

[2026] EWHC 1352 (Ch)

Case No PT-2025-001120

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES

PROPERTY TRUST AND PROBATE LIST

Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL

Date 05/06/2026

Before

MASTER KAYE

Between

Mr Cam AskanClaimant

HM Land RegistryDefendant

Mr Cam Askan appeared in person on his recusal application but then left court. for in person

Harriet Holmes (instructed by Government Legal Department) for Defendant

Hearing Hearing dates: 8 April 2026

Further written submissions 10 April 2026

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 5 June 2026 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

.............................

MASTER KAYE

Master Kaye:

[1]This is my judgment following a hearing to determine the defendant’s (“HMLR”) application dated 5 December 2025 for reverse summary judgment or strike out of Mr Askan’s claim (“the Defendant’s Application”) and Mr Askan’s application dated 7 December 2025 by which he seeks to strike out the Defendant’s Application on the grounds that it is vexatious and abusive and for a stay of related proceedings (“the Claimant’s Application”) (together “the Applications”).

[2]The Defendant’s Application was supported by the witness statement of Ms Nikkita Eilenberg dated 5 December 2025 together with an exhibit. Mr Askan’s witness statement in response and in support of the Claimant’s Application was dated 8 December 2025 and was accompanied by what was described as an independent expert report and accompanying documents. Mr Askan has filed and relied on additional documents and evidence including the two further applications and supporting evidence.

[3]There is no entitlement to rely on expert evidence at all without permission from the court and permission is rarely granted for interim applications. Any expert evidence will be limited to issues on which the court considers it is reasonably required to resolve the claim. The court will be astute to ensure it is properly focused on those identified issues. Mr Askan had not sought permission to rely on expert evidence at all, and the “report” was not CPR compliant. The “expert” was counsel who is said to specialise in matters related to property title. However, he appears to have adopted the role of both “judge and jury” providing his review of the evidence as he understood it, his view on the conduct of HMLR based in part on supposition and/or assertion, his view on the application of the law to those findings and has then provided recommendations. This mix of submissions and opinion was not CPR 35 compliant expert evidence. Had Mr Askan sought permission to rely on the report as expert evidence it would have been refused.

[4]The Applications were listed to be heard together. The hearing notice was sent out on 5 January 2026, listing the Applications for hearing on 8 April 2026. Nothing was heard from either party until Mr Askan issued an application on 29 March 2026 seeking a stay of the proceedings pending determination of his application to the ECHR (which he had issued on 12 March 2026) in respect of other proceedings in which he had been unsuccessful (“the Wrexham proceedings”) and ongoing police investigations (connected to the Wrexham proceedings) or alternatively a stay because proceeding on 8 April would expose him to an irreversible risk of injustice. Mr Askan informed the court that he would not be attending the hearing. The stay application was listed on 8 April 2026. Mr Askan was unhappy that the stay application had been listed at the hearing on 8 April 2026. He started to correspond with the court. His correspondence became increasingly intemperate. He began to make threats in that correspondence to the judges and court staff. Such conduct is unacceptable. This was followed by a request and then an application that I recuse myself dated 7 April 2026.

[5]Although Mr Askan did initially attend the hearing on 8 April 2026, he did so only to demand that I recuse myself so that the Applications could be heard by a different judge. His behaviour was disruptive. He made it clear that that behaviour was deliberate and intentional.

[6]For the reasons I gave in an extempore judgment on 8 April 2026 I dismissed the recusal application. Mr Askan left the hearing during the course of that judgment and did not return. I refused his 29 March 2026 application for a stay for the reasons I gave in a second extempore judgment on 8 April 2026.

[7]I heard Ms Holmes submissions on the Applications. In Mr Askan’s absence I nonetheless asked her to address me on the matters he had raised in his evidence and his skeleton argument. The recusal and stay applications coupled with Mr Askan’s behaviour had taken up the entire morning. The result was that there was insufficient time to give an extempore judgment on the Applications on 8 April 2026 and judgment had to be reserved.

[8]I asked HMLR to locate and produce a document to which Mr Askan had referred but which did not appear to have been included in the hearing bundle. I received those documents from HMLR with a covering email copied to Mr Askan on 10 April 2026.

[9]I had the benefit of skeleton arguments on behalf of both HMLR and Mr Askan. I have taken into account the written and oral submissions and the evidence and documents even if I do not refer to every argument or document relied on.

[10]For the reasons set out in this judgment the Defendant’s Application succeeds and I strike out parts of the claim and grant reverse summary judgment on the balance, and I dismiss the Claimant’s Application.

The background:

[11]HMLR is a non-ministerial government department, responsible for the registering the ownership of land and property in England and Wales.

The relevant property, titles and ownership:

[12]Mr Askan is the current registered proprietor of the registered freehold title to land known as Old Bank Buildings, High Street, St Asaph registered with title number CYM496106 (‘theProperty’). The Property is a former bank most recently an HSBC bank. An application for first registration of the Property was submitted to HMLR by solicitors acting for HSBC on 19 April 2010. The application identified the land it sought to register by both the address of the property and the attached plan. It relied on two conveyances dated May 1908 as providing its root of title. The plan the solicitors had prepared was marked up on the then current edition of the Ordnance Survey map and set out the extent of the title they sought to register edged red: Figure 1 CYM496106 First Registration Application Plan

[13]First registration was completed on 15 June 2010. HMLR registered all but two small parcels of the land which HSBC had sought to register. HMLR explained those two parcels of land were already registered within title number WA916642 (“the Red Lion Pub”). HMLR provided a plan identifying the small parcels of land included in the title to the Red Lion Pub and provided details of the process for challenging their decision. It was not challenged. The plan they provided on 15 June 2010 therefore showed the land HSBC had sought to register but that had been excluded from registration; the remainder of the land in respect of which registration was sought was registered and shown in the title plan (see figure 3 below): Figure 2: CYM496106 15 June 2010 showing the parts excluded from registration in blue

[14]In 2011 the Property was transferred to Gainmill Limited. Mr Askan acquired the Property by a transfer dated 12 March 2019, made between(1) Gainmill Limited, as transferor, and

(2) Mr Askan, as transferee, for the sum of £93,000.

[15]Mr Askan was registered at HMLR as the registered proprietor of the Property on 27 March 2019. The title plan reflected the general boundaries of what had been registered and recorded as having been registered on first registration for title number CYM496106 in June 2010: Figure 3 CYM496106 Current title plan as registered

[16]The official copy entries for Mr Askan’s title record the extent of the property on the property register as follows “The Freehold land shown edged red on the plan of the above title filed at the Registry and being Old Bank Buildings, High Street St Asaph (LL17 0RG)” The plan is figure 3 above.

[17]Figures 1 to 3 above include references to the Club, and the PH. PH is the Red Lion Pub, Red Lion House, Gemig Street, St Asaph. The freehold title of the Red Lion Pub includes the two blue strips referred to above. It lies to the north of the Property. The Red Lion Pub was first registered on 2 June 1999 and is currently registered to Hannah Louise Farrar and Mark Edward Farrar. Its title plan as registered at HMLR is set out below:

Figure 4 WA916642 The Red Lion Pub

[18]The Club means the land known as St Asaph Conservative Club, High Street, St Asaph LL17 0RG. The freehold title is registered at HMLR with title number CYM191971. The Club lies to the west of the Property. It was the subject of first registration on 13 August 2004. From 25 September 2008, it was registered to David Gwyn Williams, Ronald Safhill and Michael Kenneth Cook, as bare trustees for the St Asaph Conservative Club. Figure 5CYM191971 The Club

[19]As will be apparent from figures 3,4, and 5, there is an area of land that sits between the Property and the Club which was not included in either registered titles at the time of first registration. There has been a dispute about ownership of that area some of which remained unregistered land. For the purposes of this judgment that area can be described as two separate areas: the Contested Land and the AP Land.

[20]Mr Askan accepts that he acquired title CYM496106 when he acquired the Property in 2019. He therefore acquired the title which HSBC had registered and transferred to Gainmill Ltd who then transferred it to him. In these proceedings, however, he advances his claim against HMLR on the basis that he considers that the title to the Property should include or should always have included the Contested Land and the AP Land between the Property’s western boundary in Fig. 3 above and the line marking the eastern boundary of the Club.

The Contested Land:

[21]Mr Askan commenced the Wrexham proceedings in Wrexham County Court against the Club in respect of the Contested Land in 2023. The Contested Land was made up of 3 parcels of land: two were unregistered and both Mr Askan and the Club claimed to be entitled to be the registered proprietors of them. The third parcel of land was already registered as part of the Club’s title and had been since first registration in 2004, but Mr Askan did not accept that it had been or should have been registered in the Club’s title asserting his own entitlement to be registered as the proprietor of that parcel of land.

[22]There were other aspects of the dispute between Mr Askan and the Club which are not relevant for these purposes.

[23]In his judgment dated 25 February 2025, His Honour Judge Humphries found in favour of the Club finding that the Club was entitled to be registered with possessory title to the purple and yellow land and to retain its title absolute to the red land (see Figure 6 below). As part of the final order made in those proceedings HMLR were required to give effect to declarations made by the court and alter the register to reflect them pursuant to Schedule 4 Land Registration Act 2002 (“LRA 2002”) (see below). They have not yet done so in the circumstances that have occurred.

[24]Mr Askan sought permission to appeal the decision and then renewed his application for permission to appeal orally before Mr Justice Constable on 22 July 2025. On 25 July 2025, Mr Justice Constable handed down judgment refusing the renewed application for permission to appeal (

[2025] EWHC 1955 (KB)

). Mr Askan sought to appeal further to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court but there was no jurisdiction to do so. He had exhausted his rights of appeal in this jurisdiction. He has now submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights (“ECHR”) on 12 March 2026.

[25]Figure 6 below is taken from the judgment in the Wrexham proceedings. I use it only for the purposes of identifying the position of the Contested Land and the AP Land.

[26]The Contested Land is coloured purple, yellow and red (or for those reading in black and white the three shaded parcels to the top left of Figure 6 on the western side). The red parcel was registered as part of the Club’s title on first registration in 2004 (the shaded area with three X’s). The purple and yellow land were the unregistered land in respect of which both Mr Askan and the Club sought title. Figure 6 Plan showing Contested and AP Land

The AP Land

[27]The AP Land is the area shaded green (the shaded area below the Contested Land).The green land is the subject of a separate (and still pending) application for registration dated 13 March 2023 (lodged on 16 March 2023) made by St Asaph City Council (“the City Council”), who claim to have acquired title to the AP Land by adverse possession. The AP Land has been assigned a provisional title number of CYM865057 pending determination of the City Council’s application, as would be the case whenever an application for possessory title based on adverse possession were made. The City Council say that they have maintained the AP Land and placed benches on it for use by the public since about 1995. The green land is also referred to as “Land on the East Side of St Asaph Conservative Club LL17 0RG” and is the “East Side title” referred to by Mr Askan in his claim.

[28]Mr Askan objected to the City Council’s application and asserted his own entitlement to be registered with title to the green land. The City Council’s application and Mr Askan’s objection were referred to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (“FTT”) to be determined pursuant to s.73 LRA 2002, which provides that “if it is not possible to dispose by agreement of an objection to which subsection (5) applies, the registrar must refer the matter to the First-tier Tribunal”. There has not yet been any determination as to which of Mr Askan or the City Council (if either) is entitled to be registered with title to the green land.

[29]During the Wrexham proceedings a survey of the area was requisitioned from HMLR by Mr Askan. This resulted in a proposal to update the general boundaries of the Club, the Property and the Red Lion Pub which were said to involve corrections to reflect real world changes, corrections to building lines, boundary features and Topo features. Mr Askan objected. The proposed updating was not implemented.

[30]The registered title for each of the Property, the Club and the Red Lion Pub therefore remain recorded at HMLR as they were on first registration and the title plans showing the general boundaries of each title remain as set out at Figures 3 to 5 above. The Club’s title plan has not yet been amended or altered to reflect the declarations made by HHJ Humphries on 7 February 2025 nor have any amendments been made in respect of the AP land.

The Claim

[31]Mr Askan issued this claim on 27 October 2025. By the claim Mr Askan alleges that HMLR have altered his title and/or taken other action which has caused him loss. The primary remedy that Mr Askan seeks is rectification of the register under Schedule 4 LRA 2002 to restore title of the Property to its 2010 extent. He advances that claim in a number of different ways:

“Claim for rectification of the Land Register, declarations that the Defendant acted ultra vires and that the 2024 "East Side" title is void, damages and/or indemnity under the Land Registration Act 2002, and damages for misfeasance in public office, maladministration, and breach of Article 1 of Protocol 1 ECHR. The Claimant purchased the Old Bank Buildings, St Asaph (Title CYM496106) in 2019 relying on the 2010 registered plan. In 2023- 2024, the Defendant unlawfully altered neighbouring Title CYM191971 by adding dotted boundary lines and later created a new registered title in favour of the St Asaph Conservative Club, thereby depriving the Claimant of part of his registered land. The Defendant acted ultra vires, contrary to sections 58 and 60 and Schedules 4 and 8 of the Land Registration Act 2002, and in breach of public-law duties of fairness and legitimate expectation. The Claimant seeks rectification of the register, declarations of unlawfulness, damages and/or indemnity of approximately £135,000, interest, and costs.”

[32]He provides more detail in his particulars of claim (“POC”). He summarises his causes of action at POC [29]:(i) ultra vires acts relating to the alleged creation of a new title

(ii) breach of statutory duty by contravention of ss.58, 60 and Schedules 4 and 8 LRA

(iii) Misfeasance in Public Office/ Maladministration;

(iv) Breach of Legitimate Expectation and Procedural Fairness and

(v) Violation of A1P1 ECHR. And then sets out the remedies he seeks at POC [30] which include: (i) Rectification of the register under Schedule 4 LRA 2002 restoring Title CYM496106 to its 2010 extent; (ii) Alternatively, indemnity and damages under Schedule 8 LRA 2002 for losses (iii) Declarations that the Defendant acted ultra vires; and the 2024 "East Side" title is void and of no legal effect and (iv) Damages for misfeasance, maladministration, and breach of A1P1. (my emphasis)

[33]The losses that he claims are set out in POC [26] and are said to flow from the alleged unlawful alteration of the title to the Property. They include(i) diminution in value based on loss of curtilage, development potential and market stigma £45,000;

(ii) professional and legal costs £32,000

(iii) consequential losses arising from additional funding costs and planning delays £18,000;

(iv) litigation losses which appears to relate primarily to costs liabilities arising from other proceedings £40,000 plus and

(v) intangible and reputational harm. This provides a provisional loss of £135,000.

[34]HMLR say that the claim is a misunderstanding by Mr Askan of both the position in relation to the relevant titles and HMLR’s role. They say that as against HMLR, Mr Askan remains the registered proprietor of exactly the same Property including the extent of it as was the case when he acquired title to the Property in 2019. The register has not changed nor has the extent of the Property that was registered in 2010. Consequently, they say the claim against them is hopeless and either they should be granted summary judgment or the claim should be struck out on the basis that there are no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.

[35]The claim is therefore advanced on the basis that the root to the title to the Property on first registration was a conveyance in 1908 which Mr Askan considers would have entitled HSBC to obtain a more expansive area on first registration than it sought in 2010 and which would have included the Contested Land and the AP Land. He considers that the extent of the land registered on first registration to the Club in 2004 exceeded that which it was entitled to and encroached on the land which HSBC were entitled to register in 2010 and thus encroaches on land which should form part of the Property.

[36]His fundamental difficulties in advancing claims against HMLR on the basis that they have made a mistake such that the title should be rectified to the extent he seeks are that: i) and most importantly, no application was made to register the title of the Property beyond its current general boundary to the west on first registration in 2010. Mr Askan acquired the full extent of the title registered by HSBC in 2010 in 2019 – nothing more and nothing less; ii) his dispute with the Club in which he asserted his rights to the Contested Land have been determined in the Wrexham proceedings and he has been unsuccessful so far; and, iii) no decision has yet been made about the entitlement to ownership of the AP Land.

Summary Judgment

[37]In order to assist Mr Askan, Ms Holmes had recorded in her skeleton argument some of the well-known principles to be applied on an application for summary judgment by reference to the White Book 2026 with additional comments rather than referring directly to authorities. I have largely adopted her summary of the relevant provisions as set out below.

[38]Pursuant to CPR 24 the Court has the power to grant summary judgment against a claimant in any type of proceedings “if it considers that the party has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim; and there is no other compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at trial.”

[39]The White Book 2026, Vol.1 at §24.3.2 (p.656) can be summarised as follows:(1) The test is whether the claimant’s prospect of success is realistic as opposed to fanciful, being one that is more than merely arguable and carries some degree of conviction.

(2) There must not be a ‘mini trial’, but that does not mean the Court must take at face value without analysis what a claimant says in his statements before the court. In some cases, it may be clear that there is no real substance in the factual assertions made, particularly if contradicted by contemporaneous documents. Ms Holmes submits that this is particularly important in this case, because although the allegations are serious on their face, the key documents demonstrate there is no real substance in them.

(3) The Court is to take into account not only the evidence actually available on the application for summary judgment but also the evidence that can reasonably be expected at trial. Ms Holmes reminds me that it is for Mr Askan to make and then substantiate any assertion that further evidence might reasonably be available at a trial by describing the nature of the evidence, its source and its relevance to the issues before the Court: (White Book 2026 Vol.1 at §24.3.2.3 (p.658)). Mr Askan submits that the ECHR application and ongoing police investigations, to which I refer below, are the type and quality of evidence that will be available at trial which would need to be taken into account when considering whether to grant summary judgment.

[40]Ms Holmes submits that the fact the allegations are serious on their face is unlikely to amount to a ‘compelling reason’: White Book 2026 Vol.1 at §24.3.4, citing Berstein v Tait

[2015] EWCA Civ 1001

Strike out

[41]CPR 3.4(a) gives the Court the power to strike out a statement of case if it appears to the Court that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim.

[42]Statements of case which are suitable for striking out under CPR 3.4(a) include:(1) those which raise an unwinnable case where continuance of the proceedings is without any possible benefit to the respondent and would waste resources on both sides (White Book 2026, Vol.1 at §3.4.2 (p.94) citing Harris v Bolt Burdon [2000] CP Rep 70); and

(2) a claim which discloses no valid claim as a matter of law (White Book 2026, Vol.1 at §3.4.2 (p.94) citing Price Meats Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc [2000] 2 All ER (Comm) 346, Ch D).

[43]A statement of case which discloses no reasonable grounds may also be an abuse of the court process and this may then overlap with an entitlement to seek summary judgment under Part 24.

[44]The overlap between CPR 3.4 and CPR Part 24 is explained at White Book 2026, Vol.1 §3.4.1 (p.112). It is recognised that the power to grant summary judgment under Part 24 is wider than the power contained in CPR 3.4 which is focussed on a narrower consideration of the claim.

[45]It seems to me that Mr Askan’s claim raises issues about the use of this claim to undermine the Wrexham proceedings and the FTT proceedings. That is in circumstances where the parties directly affected by the relief he is seeking have not been made parties to this claim but where the relief he is seeking appears to overlap with those other proceedings to which they are parties. In the case of the Wrexham proceedings, it appears that Mr Askan seeks to achieve an outcome as against HMLR that he was unable to achieve against the Club but without the Club being party to the claim. In respect of the City Council, he appears to seek to circumvent the ongoing FTT proceedings. That has some of the hallmarks of abuse of process more broadly and it seems to me may well be a collateral attack on the decision in the Wrexham proceedings.

Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002)

[46]Mr Askan’s claim concerns complaints about actions he says HMLR have taken that affect his registered title. The starting point is therefore the LRA 2002.

[47]Although the change from unregistered land to registered land started in Victorian times it was initially voluntary, all land and property in England and Wales only became subject to compulsory first registration when there was a relevant disposition, for example there was a transfer/sale of property from one party to another, in about 1990. The most recent codification of the provisions relating to registration are set out in the LRA 2002. This provides the statutory framework for the continuation of a register of title in England and Wales and the registration of title.

[48]Despite the time that has passed since registration became compulsory there remain areas of unregistered land within England and Wales. The LRA 2002 therefore includes provisions about the role of HMLR in relation to applications for first registration of unregistered land which are supplemented by the Land Registration Rules 2003.

[49]In order to provide clarity and certainty about the effect of registration the LRA 2002 provides as follows:

“58 Conclusiveness (1)If, on the entry of a person in the register as the proprietor of a legal estate, the legal estate would not otherwise be vested in him, it shall be deemed to be vested in him as a result of the registration. (2)Subsection (1) does not apply where the entry is made in pursuance of a registrable disposition in relation to which some other registration requirement remains to be met.”

[50]Section 58 is intended to maintain the integrity of the register. It is fundamental to the operation and effectiveness of the register in England and Wales. It allows parties to rely on the information on the register as being conclusive as to the legal title held by the proprietor identified on the register.

[51]Official copy entries of the register can be obtained which provide information about who is registered as the proprietor of the relevant title. It is common to obtain a copy of the title plan when requesting official copies, but a title plan does not have the same conclusive status in most cases as the registered title.

[52]For the purposes of this judgment, it is therefore helpful to consider the provisions of s.60 which provides as follows: “60 Boundaries (1)The boundary of a registered estate as shown for the purposes of the register is a general boundary, unless shown as determined under this section. (2) A general boundary does not determine the exact line of the boundary. (3)Rules may make provision enabling or requiring the exact line of the boundary of a registered estate to be determined and may, in particular, make provision about— (a)the circumstances in which the exact line of a boundary may or must be determined, (b)how the exact line of a boundary may be determined, (c)procedure in relation to applications for determination, and (d)the recording of the fact of determination in the register or the index maintained under section 68. (4)Rules under this section must provide for applications for determination to be made to the registrar.

[53]The effect of s.60 is that unless a specific determination has been made about the exact location of a boundary, the lines of the title plan are approximate or general. This is considered to be sufficient in most cases but there is a process for determining the precise position of boundaries and recording them if it is necessary to do so. Often therefore parties refer to title plans as being “for identification purposes only”.

[54]The LRA 2002 has provisions about the limited circumstances in which there can be an alteration to the register whether pursuant to a court order or otherwise. This is separate to any determination about the precise location of a boundary.

[55]Section 65 LRA 2002 records that Schedule 4 makes provisions about the alteration of the register. Schedule 4 paragraph 1 provides: “In this Schedule, references to rectification, in relation to alteration of the register, are to alteration which—(a) involves the correction of a mistake, and

(b) prejudicially affects the title of a registered proprietor.” (my emphasis)

[56]Rectification is therefore a particular type of alteration to the register for which there are two elements(i) a mistake and

(ii) a mistake that prejudicially affects a registered proprietor’s title. The relevant registered proprietor for those purposes is not necessarily the applicant but may be the party whose title is adversely affected by the proposed alteration. Mr Askan’s focus is on his own title but in so far as he seeks to alter another registered proprietor’s title – such as the Club - because he says that there has been a mistake they may well be prejudicially affected.

[57]Schedule 4 is not intended to permit a registered proprietor to expand their title by rectification for mistake without notice to another (prejudicially) affected party. Where Mr Askan seeks an order which requires the Club’s registered title to be rectified to reduce it and as a corollary to expand his title, it seems to me that the Club’s title is prejudicially affected by the alteration. In light of the Wrexham proceedings this would include all of the Contested Land. It is this half of the equation that would bring back into account the need for the Club to be involved in any proceedings which sought to alter the register in relation to the Contested Land. Equally it would be this half of the equation that would require the court to consider whether the City Council needed to be a party to this claim in relation to Mr Askan’s claim to be entitled to seek to rectify in respect of the AP Land. But in any event the type of mistake for which a court can make an order for rectification or at all is narrowly confined.

[58]Paragraph 2 provides power to the court to order an alteration to the register in some circumstances:

“Alteration pursuant to a court order 2(1)The court may make an order for alteration of the register for the purpose of— (a)correcting a mistake, (b)bringing the register up to date, or (c)giving effect to any estate, right or interest excepted from the effect of registration. (2)An order under this paragraph has effect when served on the registrar to impose a duty on him to give effect to it.”

[59]Paragraph 2(1)(a) would therefore be the only applicable provision for Mr Askan’s claim. Where there is an intention to rectify the register paragraph 3 Schedule 4 sets out the requirement for consent from the existing proprietor save in particular circumstances. This therefore again raises the need for the Club, in particular, to be given notice and have the opportunity to respond to the application to rectify the register. Given the Wrexham proceedings that again raises issues about these proceedings more widely than the narrow question of whether they identify any reasonable grounds for a claim against HMLR and/or whether the claim as advanced against HMLR has no real prospect of success.

[60]Unless an alteration to the register is made pursuant to court order (for example the order made by His Honour Judge Humphries in the Wrexham proceedings) then the only type of alteration which can be made pursuant to Schedule 4 is set out at paragraph 5 which provides as follows: Alteration otherwise than pursuant to a court order 5 The registrar may alter the register for the purpose of—(a) correcting a mistake,

(b) bringing the register up to date,

(d) removing a superfluous entry.

Alteration otherwise than pursuant to a court order

[61]Ruoff & Roper, Registered Conveyancing explains at §46.0005 that the LRA 2002 introduced a distinction between “alteration” and “rectification” of the register and explains the difference. It continues:

“…Similarly, Sch.4 para.2 to the 2002 Act provides a closed list of the circumstances in which the court may make an order for alteration of the register. Rectification is defined as a specific instance of alteration. It is a kind of alteration which involves the correction of a mistake, and which prejudicially affects the title of a registered proprietor. Rectification is therefore a type of alteration, but not all alterations will amount to rectification. Thus an alteration of the title plan of a registered estate in land so as to show an existing “general boundary” (which, by definition, does not determine the exact line of the boundary and therefore does not define the precise extent of the land in the registered title) in a more accurate position will not amount to rectification, as it will not prejudicially affect the title of the registered proprietor.”

[62]Ruoff & Roper explains the development of the law in relation to what constitutes a mistake under the LRA 2002 at §46.009. It emphasises that the mistake must relate to the register itself and:

“…there will be a ‘mistake’ whenever the circumstances are such that, on the facts and law appertaining at the time: (i) an entry is made in the register that should not have been made; (ii) an entry is made in the register that should not have been made in the form in which it was made; (iii) an entry is not made which should have been made; or (iv) an entry is deleted which should not have been so deleted the question of whether there was a mistake is asked at the time of the entry on or omission to the register. ”

[63]There are circumstances in which a person is entitled to be indemnified for losses suffered as a consequence of an error or mistake made in respect of the register. The types of error or mistake for which a person is entitled to seek relief and circumscribed by Schedule 8 LRA 2002 which provides at paragraph 1:

“Entitlement 1(1)A person is entitled to be indemnified by the registrar if he suffers loss by reason of— (a)rectification of the register, (b)a mistake whose correction would involve rectification of the register, (c)a mistake in an official search, (d)a mistake in an official copy, (e)a mistake in a document kept by the registrar which is not an original and is referred to in the register, (f)the loss or destruction of a document lodged at the registry for inspection or safe custody, (g)a mistake in the cautions register, or (h)failure by the registrar to perform his duty under section 50. (2)For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(a)— (a)any person who suffers loss by reason of the change of title under section 62 is to be regarded as having suffered loss by reason of rectification of the register, and (b)the proprietor of a registered estate or charge claiming in good faith under a forged disposition is, where the register is rectified, to be regarded as having suffered loss by reason of such rectification as if the disposition had not been forged. (3)No indemnity under sub-paragraph (1)(b) is payable until a decision has been made about whether to alter the register for the purpose of correcting the mistake; and the loss suffered by reason of the mistake is to be determined in the light of that decision.”

[64]Mr Askan’s claim would fall within Schedule 8 at §1(1)(b) only as he argues there was a mistake which should be rectified by court order.

Further Background

[65]Mr Askan and the Club had been in dispute about the Contested Land for some time after he acquired the Property. This resulted in the Wrexham proceedings which took place between 2023 and 2025. Mr Askan’s application to the ECHR and his complaints to the police concern the conduct of the Club and HMCTS in relation to the Wrexham proceedings. None of those police complaints have any direct bearing on whether HMLR have altered the register since he became the registered proprietor in 2019 and/or whether there is a mistake on the register or a reason to rectify the register. Ultimately if he is successful in his complaints and or his ECHR application and that results in a change to the outcome of the Wrexham proceedings HMLR may ordered to make changes to the register but that will not be as a consequence of any “mistake” they have made.

[66]Mr Askan does not accept that the register currently accurately reflects the extent of the land to which he is entitled to be registered in 2019. He further believes that HMLR have taken steps unilaterally to alter the register to his detriment.

[67]Mr Askan does not accept that the Contested Land and AP Land did not form part of the title registered by HSBC in 2010 and/or which should have been registered in 2010. He believes that since the 1908 conveyance which provided the root used to prove title to the Property which HSBC sought to register was greater than the extent of the title in fact registered by HSBC, that he has an entitlement to be registered as proprietor of a more extensive area which includes both the Contested Land and the AP Land. HSBC, however, only sought to register its title on first registration in 2010 to the land identified on the plan at figures 1 to 3 above. The Contested Land and AP Land did not form part of the registered title of which he became the registered proprietor in 2019.

The AP Land in more detail:

[68]In 2023 the City Council’s solicitors, John Owens Solicitors, applied for first registration of a possessory title to the AP Land on the grounds of adverse possession. The application in Form FR1 was dated 13 March 2023 (“the AP application”).

[69]The broad extent of the land over which the City Council sought first registration can be seen more clearly as the land shaded green on the above plan, but the actual plan submitted was a marked-up version of the Club’s title plan:

[70]The City Council explained in their application that they had had a lease to the AP Land from the person they understood to be the freeholder (Mr Owen not HSBC or its predecessor) from 1995 to 1998 but had no record of contact with him since 1995.

[71]In September 2023, solicitors for Mr Askan objected to the City Council’s application. HMLR explained that if the City Council were to proceed he would be given notice to enable him to formally object. HMLR were by this stage referring to the green parcel of land as “Land on the East Side of St Asaph Conservative Club”.

[72]On 12 November 2023 HMLR told Mr Askan they intended to have a survey carried out by Ordnance Survey to enable them to consider whether the City Council’s application should proceed.

[73]After the survey had been undertaken, on 22 June 2024, Mr Askan was formally notified that the City Council’s application was proceeding, and any objection had to be lodged by 12noon on 12 July 2024. Following the survey the AP Land had been slightly adjusted, and the plan was as below:

[74]When accepting the City Council’s application in relation to the AP Land, and giving notice to Mr Askan, HMLR gave the AP Land a provisional title number CYM865057 and name “Land on the East Side of St Asaph Conservative Club”. Contrary to Mr Askan’s complaint about the provisional title number, the 22 June 2024 letter makes it clear that the title number is provisional and states “ If the application is approved the applicant will be registered as proprietor of the land under the above title number.” The ownership of the AP Land remains undetermined, so the title number remains provisional.

[75]The general boundary of the AP Land on its eastern edge is the western boundary of the Property. Nothing on the plans or indeed in the FR1 submitted by the City Council seeks to extend the AP application to land that is beyond that line and therefore no part of the AP Land falls within the general boundary of the Property as currently registered.

[76]Mr Askan’s objection was acknowledged by HMLR on 28 July 2024. On 4 August 2024 they confirmed that the objection could not be determined as groundless as it considered that “It is clear that there are triable facts and law in this matter and it would be inappropriate for the Registrar to pre-empt a decision that is rightly one that the Tribunal or a Court should make.” and referred it to the FTT for determination.

[77]Pending that determination, the AP Land remains unregistered land. Although it has a provisional title number no title has yet been registered in favour of the City Council or Mr Askan. It will be for the FTT to hear the evidence and determine whether the City Council is entitled to be registered with title to the AP Land in due course. This raises questions about the utility of these proceedings in relation to the AP Land which is subject to determination by the FTT and where the City Council would also have an interest in the claim made by Mr Askan in these proceedings.

The Extent of the title to the Property:

[78]In parallel with his dispute with the City Council and HMLR in relation to the AP Land Mr Askan was engaging with HMLR more generally about the nature and extent of his registered title and how it came to be registered in the form it was in 2010.

[79]On 19 November 2023 HMLR explained that HSBC had sought first registration for the parcel of land edged red in their application for first registration (Figure 1 above) and that, other than the small area which overlapped with the Red Lion Pub, the title sought by HSBC had been registered. On 22 January 2024, they explained “Please note that simply because the land in respect of which you purchased a registered title was part of a large conveyance in the early 1900s there have been sale offs from that original conveyance and again, we would point out that you purchased an already registered title and not any other land in that conveyance.” They explained that they act based on the documents they receive they do not undertake the conveyancing or give legal advice.

[80]The nub of Mr Askan’s complaint is that although he purchased the registered title to the Property in 2019 for which the register is conclusive (s.58 LRA 2002) and although the title plan to that Property remains as it was in 2010, he believes that HSBC were in a position to and should have registered a larger title in 2010 based on the 1908 conveyances which would have included the Contested Land and the AP Land. He is now seeking to assert title to that more extensive area. He argues that HMLR should simply rectify the register as it was a mistake not to register the Property with title to that more extensive area in 2010.

[81]In seeking to explore this issue, about which Mr Askan has decidedly firm views, he requested information about the first registration of the Property with a view to opposing the AP application.

[82]As set out above a survey was requisitioned by HMLR in 2024 following the AP application. The surveyor’s survey used a range of identification markers to prepare a series of survey plans identifying potential alterations to the general boundaries of each of the Property, the Club and the Red Lion Pub to align with the surveyor’ findings. The results did not align with Mr Askan’s understanding of the position.

[83]On 3 May 2024, HMLR sent a B224 ‘Notice of the proposed alteration of the register’, notifying Mr Askan of a proposed update to the title plan for the Property so as to put the general boundaries in a more accurate position following the survey. These alterations would have fallen outside the scope of Schedule 4 paragraph 1 as their purpose was to show an existing general boundary in a more accurate position (see above).

[84]An updated title plan marked ‘proposed plan’ was enclosed and the letter confirmed that “it will continue to identify general boundaries of the registered title and not their exact position” as shown below. Mr Askan was provided with an opportunity to object.

[85]At the same time HMLR had made proposals to alter the Club and Red Lion Pub title plans to reflect the surveyor’s findings.

[86]On 22 May 2024, Mr Askan complained to HMLR. This was primarily about the proposed changes to the general boundaries for the Club. He complained that HMLR were interfering with the Wrexham proceedings by proposing the changes whilst that claim was proceeding and accused HMLR of being involved in a fraud.

[87]On 24 May 2024 HMLR informed Mr Askan that it had put on hold any alteration of the title plans for the Property, the Club and Red Lion Pub and confirmed that title plans for each of those properties would remain as currently shown on the register (figures 3 to 5).

[88]On 2 August 2024, HMLR provided Mr Askan with a comprehensive explanation of the history of the title to the Property and specifically addressed Mr Askan’s complaint that although he had purchased the registered title to the Property that because HSBC’s root of title was the 1908 conveyances he owned/was entitled to registered title of the land remaining in the 1908 conveyance which included the AP Land. The HMLR letter is lengthy and comprehensive including diagrams and plans. HMLR confirmed again that they had put on hold any alterations to the title of each of the Property, the Club and the Red Lion Pub and would not take any further action until they received an application for alteration of all three titles or a court order.

[89]In broad outline the letter first explained the role of HMLR and the first registration of the Property. HMLR explained that although the root of title for the Property came from the two 1908 conveyances which covered a larger parcel of land that did not mean that unregistered land derived from the same root title was owned by Mr Askan. HMLR further confirmed that the registered title represented the land which HSBC had sought to register which formed only part of the land included in the original 1908 conveyances. HMLR explained that some parts of the land included within the 1908 conveyances had already been registered to the Club in 2004 and the Red Lion Pub in 1999.

[90]The letter then explained the position in relation to the Club’s title. The Club’s root of title was derived from a 1919 conveyance and then a 1968 conveyance. The surveyors findings and the proposed alteration of the Club’s title plan would not have extended the Club’s title beyond what was already either registered to it or which it claimed in the Wrexham proceedings although at that stage those proceedings had not been finally determined.

[91]HMLR then explained that the root of the Red Lion Club’s title was derived from a 1977 conveyance. They provided the original plan, the plan as registered and proposed alterations but again confirmed they were not proceeding at that time.

[92]Finally, HMLR dealt with the AP Land and the Contested Land. They noted that HSBC had not said it was in occupation of any land other than the title it sought to register in 2010. They explained there was no evidence that Mr Askan’s predecessors’ in title were in occupation of any other part of land derived from the 1908 conveyance at the time of the 2010 first registration. They noted that parts of the remaining land in the 1908 conveyance was already registered in other titles. And finally noted that there was no evidence that Mr Askan had acquired the remainder of the land in the 1908 conveyance when he was registered as proprietor of the Property. In relation to the AP Land, HMLR noted the disputed application.

[93]Mr Askan was unhappy with the response and continued to press HMLR relying on an old plan used by the Club for a planning application in 1997 as evidence to support his contention about the true extent of the Club’s title. The difficulty with his reliance on this plan is that it says nothing about the extent of the land which the Club sought to register on its application for first registration in 2004 and which was accepted by HMLR at that time.

[94]As Ms Holmes explains the 1997 plan relates only to a planning application made by the Club and, in any event, it was a unilateral act on the part of the Club providing an indication of where it thought its boundaries to be when making a planning application in 1997 (see comments of Mann J in Handy Cross Dev Co Ltd v. Vanni Properties Ltd

[2026] EWHC 266 (Ch)

at [50]). It is not conclusive evidence of the extent of the land to which they were entitled to be registered in 2004.

[95]The Club’s application for first registration in 2004 sought to register the title it now has, and the current registered proprietors have been registered since 2008. This all occurred prior to 2010 when HSBC registered its title to the Property. The extent of the Club’s title has remained the same since 2004 and is shown in figure 5 above subject only to the alterations to be made pursuant to the declarations in the Wrexham proceedings.

[96]A further issue raised by Mr Askan in his correspondence with HMLR and in this claim relates to dotted lines and plotting lines on Ordnance Survey plans used by HMLR for the Club. This is connected to the 1997 plan as Mr Askan believes that a 2023 internal plan reinforces his contention that the Club’s title should be limited to the extent shown in the 1997 planning application plan.

[97]In October 2023 as part of his correspondence with HMLR he was provided with a plan labelled “internal plan” which showed the extent of the Club title on a title plan. As Mr Askan explains when you zoom in on the internal plan dotted lines or pecked lines are visible along part of the black line marking the general boundary. Mr Askan’s counsel explains in his report that the 1997 plan used for the planning application appeared to map the principal buildings and curtilage of the Club. The extent of the title as registered when viewed on the 2023 internal plan is greater. If you zoom in on the general boundary of the title plan the pecked or dotted lines mark that larger boundary and do not hug the principal buildings as the 1997 plan did. Therefore, counsel concludes that something has gone wrong and that the greater extent registered in 2004 was registered as a consequence of a mistake by HMLR. I should emphasise that the 2023 internal plan is the same as the title plan at figure 5 above and so reflects the title as registered in 2004. It is just that the nature of the document is such that it is possible to zoom in and see the plotting lines.

[98]There are a number of difficulties with that analysis for the purposes of this claim not least that HSBC did not seek to register more than the Property to which even Mr Askan’s counsel accepts Mr Askan has registered title to.

[99]Mr Askan’s counsel had focussed on whether Mr Askan might have a claim to ownership of a greater part of the Contested Land or the AP Land which is clearly a contentious matter that has either already been resolved by the Wrexham proceedings or is subject to the FTT determination which has not yet been concluded. That does not assist Mr Askan on this claim which it appears to me is wrongly directed at HMLR in all those circumstances.

[100]HMLR explained that pecked lines are plotting lines which are used where a property is not fully defined by physical features on the ordnance survey map. HMLR plot any undefined boundaries using pecked lines. These are only visible on the title plan to the Club when zoomed in and are not evident at normal scale.

[101]In October 2023 when providing documents including the internal plan they explained:

“The reason for the black plotted lines appearing on the title plan of CYM191971 is because the documentary title provided on first registration extends beyond the line of the building shown by black lines on the Ordnance Survey map detail. In circumstances where the Ordnance Survey map detail does not identify features which correspond with the extent of the documentary title, we “plot” the position of the boundaries in accordance with the plans attached to the deeds that are lodged for registration.”

[102]Mr Askan’s counsel suggests that registering the Club’s title in 2004 beyond the curtilage of the Club buildings was an error and the use of the plotting lines was wrong and exceeded HMLR’s powers. I do not agree with this analysis at all for the reasons explained by HMLR above and below. In 2004 HMLR were satisfied on the basis of the evidence advanced by the Club that it was entitled to be registered with title to the extent identified in figure 5 above. Neither HSBC nor its predecessors in title appear to have objected at the time nor did HSBC seek to register title to the Contested Land in 2010.

[103]Further, the existence of the dotted or pecked lines on the Club’s title plan when zoomed in says nothing about whether Mr Askan has any entitlement to be registered with title to that land. At best it might, if Mr Askan is right, raise issues about the Club’s title but that does not help him.

[104]If Mr Askan had been successful in the Wrexham proceedings then he would have been able to ask HMLR to alter the title. Otherwise, any claim against HMLR seeking rectification of a mistake would necessarily have to involve the Club as a party since any change to the extent of the Club’s title would potentially involve prejudicing the Club as the current registered proprietor of the land to which Mr Askan was seeking to obtain title.

[105]Since Mr Askan has already been unsuccessful in the Wrexham proceedings that simply highlights why in the particular circumstances of this case I consider there is a real issue as to the abusive nature of these proceedings where in reality the parties involved should include the Club and a decision has already been made about the Contested Land. This seems to me to be “having another go” or a collateral attack on that decision.

[106]On 12 August 2024 HMLR provided its second stage response to Mr Askan’s complaint expanding on the explanation given on 2 August 2024 and explaining why Mr Askan’s assertion that the Club’s title had grown in 2004 was a misapprehension on his part. Although it is helpful to read the letter in full for these purposes given what is set out above it can be summarised as follows:

[107]The plan below (ignoring for these purposes the red lines) shows the original extent of the 1908 root of title for the Property in yellow but including the two hatched areas.

[108]HSBC only applied to register title to part of the yellow land and in particular the old Bank Building and pathway along the western side of the building. The plan is set out at Figure 1 above and resulted in registration of the title and a title plan as set out at Figure 3 above.

[109]In 1919 there was a separate conveyance which transferred the parcels of land which are marked as mauve hatched, pink and blue on the above plan out of the 1908 root title leaving the area edged red and the area hatched yellow to be accounted for.

[110]The 1919 parcels of land extended beyond the Club buildings and formed part of the application for first registration by the Club in 2004 and now form part of its registered title – see figure 5 above.

[111]This left the yellow hatched land and the land edged red as unregistered. The AP Land is the land edged red and forms the basis of the referral to the FTT. The yellow hatched land formed part of the Contested Land in the Wrexham proceedings.

[112]HMLR again explain that HSBC applied for first registration of the land show in figure 1 and no additional land. They concluded there was no mistake in only registering HSBS’s title in the form it sought and not expanding it to encompass other land which HSBC had not sought to register. I agree.

[113]HMLR explain that it is likely that between 1908 and 2010 some of the additional land was sold off or disposed of but because the land is unregistered HMLR cannot know what the position is in relation to ownership of those parcels of land until an application for first registration is made. See for example the slivers of the yellow land to the north of the Property marked blue by HMLR on the first registration plan which had become part of the Red Lion Pub title which was registered based on a conveyance in 1977 (see above).

[114]HMLR make the additional point that even if Mr Askan were able to establish that in 2010 HSBC still owned some of the additional yellow or hatched land as a consequence of the 1908 conveyances, it was not included in the application for first registration and did not form part of the registered title to the Property which was transferred first to Gainmill and then to Mr Askan in 2019. It would have remained and would continue to be owned by HSBC not Mr Askan. This of course further undermines Mr Askan’s position. If there is a mistake as to the extent of the Club’s title whether their actual registered title or in respect of the Contested Land it does not revert to Mr Askan since he has never acquired it. It reverts to HSBC.

[115]HMLR then addressed the issue of the parcels of land transferred out of the 1908 title by the 1919 conveyance including the mauve hatched area and which now formed part of the Club’s registered title. HMLR explain that there was no reason to think in 2010 given the application made by HSBC (who were legally represented at the time) that HSBC considered that those parcels of land were owned by HSBC and no reason to think that the 1919 conveyance was not a conveyance of those parcels to what became the Club. It would have been for HSBC to have sought a more extensive title at the time if they considered they had evidence that they were entitled to a more extensive title. They did not. On that basis HMLR explained that they were not satisfied that Mr Askan had demonstrated that there was a mistake which required any alteration of the register.

[116]HMLR addressed a number of other points made by Mr Askan including his complaint that the Club had registered title to more than it was entitled to in 2004. In light of the explanation above and the 1908 and 1919 plans HMLR do not consider that to be the case. But and more importantly they explain again that the question of a mistake is not focussed on what may or may not have happened to the Club title since Mr Askan has no interest in that unless he can succeed in an application to rectify or alter the register. I agree. It is for Mr Askan to provide evidence to satisfy HMLR or a court or tribunal of his entitlement to be registered with title to either the Contested Land or the AP Land. It is not enough for him to demonstrate that the Club or the City Council are not entitled to be registered with the relevant titles.

[117]Mr Askan continued to correspond with HMLR repeating and expanding on the complaints he had made and seeking further clarification particularly in relation to the title registered to the Club and his continuing concerns that their title exceeded that which they were entitled to and encroached on land which he considers should have formed part of the Property. On 8 December 2024 HMLR again sought to address Mr Askan’s concerns particularly in relation to the pecking or dotted lines on some of the plans relating to the Club.

[118]HMLR rejected Mr Askan’s complaint recording: “HMLR uses OS plans as the basis for its title plans. In many cases, the property a person owns is bounded by obvious physical features such as walls, fences, etc. If the legal boundaries follow these physical features, then the red edging on our title plans will do so also. But sometimes a physical feature disappears - for example, part of a building is demolished - and so that feature ceases to be shown on a later edition of the OS plan. The legal boundary is unaffected: for example, I continue to own a field even if the fencing all the way round it is removed. Where the physical boundary feature no longer exists at the point when a first registration application is made, the red edging on the title plan will obviously not follow any boundary feature shown on the plan - there will not be such a feature to follow. Where there are no physical boundary features shown on the OS plan for some or all of the legal boundaries being depicted in the title plan on first registration, the official copies of the title plan will have a pecked line with the red edging along the extent of the boundary involved. These pecked lines are often referred to by our plans experts as "plotting lines", which gives an indication of their purpose. They can only be seen if you magnify the title plan. They have no legal significance. They are added by HMLR, not OS. Finally, I should add that you need always to bear in mind that the title plans show only "general boundaries"

[119]Mr Askan considers that the admission by HMLR that they added the plotting lines is significant but that is to misunderstand the process set out above. There is nothing sinister about the process explained by HMLR and no evidence has been advanced to support any suggestion of misfeasance or ultra vires in relation to the conduct of HMLR in plotting the general boundary of the Club. Of course, if Mr Askan can provide evidence that the general boundary that has been plotted by HMLR is mistaken and/or needs to be rectified that would be different but as set out above that would not be of any benefit to him unless he could also prove title to the relevant land. I note that the comprehensive survey in 2024 did not appear to support Mr Askan’s position and neither did the Wrexham proceedings.

Conclusions

[120]All of the matters raised above come into account when considering whether Mr Askan’s claims should be struck out and/or whether HMLR should be entitled to reverse summary judgment.

[121]As set out above, the court uses its powers to strike out sparingly and only in a clear and obvious case, but it will use it where a party is pursuing a claim which has no reasonable basis, or is an abuse of process, or where it would be a waste of the court’s resources and those of the parties if the claim continued. Ultimately, whether to strike out a claim is an exercise of the court’s discretion to deal with cases justly, proportionately and efficiently having regard to the overriding objective.

[122]Summary judgment involves an evaluative exercise based on the information available and reasonably expected to become available. The question for the court is whether the claim as advanced is more than merely arguable, and its prospects of success are not fanciful. The court should not undertake a mini trial but can grasp the nettle and determine a claim summarily, nonetheless. In those circumstances though it should be cautious about the risks of undertaking a mini trial the court can evaluate the evidence available particularly where it may be clear from the documents that there is no real substance to the claim or the factual assertions. Whilst therefore as a general rule the facts as pleaded should be accepted where they are obviously wrong or unsupported or contradictory the court is not precluded from summarily determining the claim.

[123]No party identified any additional evidence that might become available by trial which would change or alter the complexion of the claim as advanced. I was not persuaded that the ECHR application or the police investigations in respect of the alleged conduct of the Wrexham proceedings would provide any additional information or evidence that would affect the claim against HMLR. True it is that if the combination of the ECHR application and the police investigations were to result in a change to the outcome of the Wrexham proceedings, HMLR may be directed by a court to alter the register but that does not provide any basis for the court directing them to do so now on the basis that they have made a mistake. It is a confusion of process. This claim has to be focussed on whether there is any proper legal basis for arguing that HMLR have made a mistake in the registration of Mr Askan’s title to the Property and or have since 2010 altered it in a way which should be rectified.

Rectification to restore the title to the Property to its 2010 extent

[124]This part of Mr Askan’s claim involves two separate but equally misconceived claims. For the reasons set out the extent of the title to the Property Mr Askan acquired in 2019 remains unchanged from when it was first registered by HSBC in 2010 (see figure 3). There is no mistake and no basis for rectification.

[125]The AP Land which is the Land at the East Side is subject to an application for adverse possession by the City Council which Mr Askan has opposed. HMLR have not registered any title to the AP Land. There has been no change to the register by HMLR. The provisional title number is just that, provisional, and is subject to determination of the dispute about ownership. In any event for the reasons set out above the AP Land never did not form part of the Property when Mr Askan acquired it or when the Property was registered in 2010. As set out above whether the 1908 conveyance might have entitled HSBC to seek to register title to the AP Land they did not seek to do so. In creating a provisional title number for the AP Land and referring the dispute to the FTT HMLR have not done anything that affects the title to the Property which does not extend to the AP Land.

[126]In so far as the 1908 conveyance continues to have any relevance to the entitlement to ownership of the AP Land – particularly given that it is the City Council’s position that a Mr Owen was the freeholder in 1995 – then that land would continue to vest in HSBC as successors in title to the original bank who were the transferee of the yellow land in 1908. Mr Askan did not acquire those rights by means of his acquisition of the Property in 2019.

[127]There is no mistake capable of falling within the scope of Schedule 4 paragraph 2. Any alteration or rectification of the register pursuant to Schedule 4 in respect of the AP Lande will be subject to a determination by the FTT.

[128]HMLRs proposed updating of the general boundaries following the survey in 2024 have been put on hold. In so far as they may have updated the general boundaries of each of the Club, the Property or the Red Lion Pub, and thus may have affected either the Contested Land or the AP Land, they would only have been an updating of the general boundaries. Whether in respect of the Property, the Club, the Contested Land or the AP Land this would not in any event amount to an alteration in the Schedule 4 sense for which Mr Askan could rely on mistake and rectification (see above).

[129]HMLR will need to implement the declarations made by HHJ Humphries but are yet to do so. Any change to the register based on HHJ Humphries declarations would not be a mistake.

[130]As at the date of this hearing there has not been any change to the extent of Mr Askan’s registered title to the Property at all either since he acquired it in 2019 or 2010 when it was registered. It remains exactly as it was in 2010.

[131]The extent of the Club’s title as registered in 2004 and whether it exceeds what Mr Askan believes it should be by reference to the 1997 plan does not help him at all.

[132]Even if he were to be able to argue on some basis that the Club’s title registered in 2004 had exceeded that which the Club was entitled to register in 2004, he does not have any entitlement to be registered with the land he is complaining about. In so far as it forms part of the Contested Land, he has already failed to persuade the court that he has any entitlement to it.

[133]Even if he were able to satisfy the court that there were an issue with the extent of the Club’s title as registered in 2004 it does not help him. For the reasons set out above he has not acquired any rights of ownership beyond the title to the Property he acquired in 2019 as identified on the title plan and edged red (figure 3), none of the balance of the yellow land in the 1908 conveyance was registered as part of the title to the Property in 2010. Any remaining yellow land would not be his as of right on the basis of his 2019 acquisition. Instead, he would have to prove his entitlement to title to that land as he is doing in relation to the AP Land. It seems to me that as set out above it may still belong to HSBC if it has not otherwise already been transferred away since 1908.

[134]The high point of his argument in respect of the part of the Contested Land registered to the Club in 2004 (and in respect of which he was unsuccessful in the Wrexham proceedings) concerns his argument about the interaction between the 1997 planning application plan and the dotted or pecked lines on Club’s title plan. Neither of those arguments provide any basis for saying that the Club’s title as registered in 2004 exceeded what it was entitled to register at the time. No objection was raised at the time by any other party.

[135]Mr Askan’s claim that there has been a mistake in relation to his title to the Property that should be rectified to return the Property to its 2010 extent is simply wrong and does not stand up to scrutiny. Mr Askan is still the registered proprietor of the Property to the full extent it was when first registered in 2010. The register has not undergone any alteration since 2010 save to be updated to add in Mr Askan as proprietor. There has been no change or alteration to the register by HMLR. There has been no mistake and consequently there is no basis for any rectification under Schedule 4.

[136]For the reasons set out above, Mr Askan’s claim against HMLR for rectification on these bases has no substance, is hopeless and unarguable. It is entirely fanciful. He has no real prospect of succeeding on this element of the claim and there is no other reason to allow this part of the claim to continue.

[137]HMLR is entitled to reverse summary judgment on this part of the claim. The Claim for indemnity and damages under Schedule 8.

[138]As set out above Mr Askan has identified the various types of loss which he is claiming at [26] and[27] POC. If there is no entitlement to rectification or no mistake whose correction would involve rectification there is no basis for an award of an indemnity. It follows that any claim for an indemnity based on that mistake or rectification is equally hopeless and fanciful for the same reasons. The Defendant is entitled to reverse summary judgment on this part of the claim.

[139]If Mr Askan were right in respect of all of his arguments then arguably the Club would be entitled to seek indemnification since the rectification of the register in relation to the Contested Land some of which has been registered as part of the Club’s title since 2004 would prejudicially affect the title of the Club (see Ruoff & Roper 47.003 – 004). This highlights why they would need to be party to any claim seeking to rectify since it would involve rectification of both the Property and the Club’s titles to the detriment of the Club. Declarations that HMLR have acted ultra vires and the 2024 East Side title is void and of no legal effect.

[140]Ms Holmes explains that HMLR was established by and is governed by statute. By s.99 of the LRA 2002, HMLR is required by statute to “deal with the business of registration under [that] Act.”. HMLR dealt with the business of first registration of the Property with HSBC in accordance with the provisions of the LRA 2002 and the Land Registration Rules 2003. Having registered Mr Askan as proprietor of the Property in 2019, HMLR have never denied Mr Askan is the registered proprietor of the Property. That is the extent of their role.

[141]HMLR’s conduct in dealing with the AP Land is not ultra vires nor is the creation of a provisional title. It is entirely consistent with the process and procedure for determining the disputed ownership of the AP Land. There is no registered “East Side title” for the reasons set out above. HMLR have simply followed the procedure for determining disputed claims to a possessory title. Mr Askan may consider he has a strong claim to the AP Land, but it does not currently fall within the title to the Property, and he therefore needs to prove his claim to the AP Land in the FTT. It is for the FTT not me to determine whether the application in respect of the AP Land should succeed. In so far as that is what Mr Askan seeks to have me do this, he is in the wrong place.

[142]For completeness in so far as Mr Askan’s complaint relates to the Contested Land and the Club that has already been resolved by Wrexham proceedings and HMLR cannot be acting ultra vires either by declining to alter the register in a way inconsistent with the Wrexham proceedings or by abiding by an order of the court in those circumstances.

[143]Mr Askan submits that HMLR should have simply transferred to him the land that formed part of the 1908 conveyance since it formed the root of Mr Askan’s title to the Property including the AP Land. He submits that the failure to do so subverted the intended effect of s.58. He further submitted that the creation of the new title for the AP Land was an alteration of the register and ultra vires.

[144]This is wrong and represents both a fundamental misconception about the role of HMLR but also about what s.58 LRA 2002 is intended to do. Mr Askan’s approach to s.58 LRA 2002 is the wrong way around. Rather than being conclusive of the title as registered it would have the reverse effect and undermine the ability to place any reliance at all on the register. No one could know for example that Mr Askan’s proprietorship of the Property, as registered by HSBC in 2010 and identified on figure 3, in fact meant that he was potentially registered with title to the entirety of the 1908 yellow land whether or not it formed part of another title. On Mr Askan’s analysis any registered title it might be hiding ownership to additional more extensive land derived from a root of title which was not even referred to on the official copy entries and overlapped with other registered titles. Section 58 provides certainty that the register can be relied on. It provides conclusive evidence that Mr Askan is the registered proprietor of the Property as registered and no more. He has to separately prove any title to any additional land with the opportunity for any third party affected by his claim to engage with that claim.

[145]Again, these aspects of the claim against HMLR are unarguable and hopeless. They are entirely fanciful. There is no prospect of Mr Askan succeeding on this part of the claim and HMLR are entitled to reverse summary judgment for the reasons set out above.

Claim for damages for maladministration / non-compliance with public law duties

[146]There is an issue between the parties as to whether the maladministration claims advanced by Mr Askan so far as they related to Schedule 4 and Schedule 8 were really private law claims or public law claims. Mr Askan argues that he can bring his public law claims as private law claims and that therefore he can pursue his allegations that HMLR have failed to comply with public law duties within these proceedings.

[147]In so far as those claims are only claims that can be public law claims they have been made in the wrong forum. They would have to be claims for judicial review for which there would be a requirement for permission and there are strict time limits which have long since expired.

[148]But even if they can be advanced as private law claims they are in any event misconceived and liable to be struck out for the reasons set out below.

Claim for damages for the tort of misfeasance in public office

[149]The ingredients for the tort of misfeasance were identified by Lord Steyn in Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No 2)

[2003] 2 AC 1

at 191B-196E. First, the defendant must be a public officer. Secondly, there must be an exercise of power as a public officer. Thirdly, the defendant must have the requisite state of mind. Lord Steyn explained that there are two different forms: “First there is the case of targeted malice by a public officer i.e. conduct specifically intended to injure a person or persons. This type of case involves bad faith in the sense of the exercise of public power for an improper or ulterior motive. The second form is where a public officer acts knowing that he has no power to do the act complained of and that the act will probably injure the plaintiff. It involves bad faith inasmuch as the public officer does not have an honest belief that his act is lawful."

[150]Lord Hope at [55] (at 250B-C) set out the need for adequate particulars: “Of course, the allegation of fraud, dishonesty or bad faith must be supported by particulars. The other party is entitled to notice of the particulars on which the allegation is based. If they are not capable of supporting the allegation, the allegation itself may be struck out”.

[151]Lord Millett added at [184] – [186] (at 291F-292B):

“184. It is well established that fraud or dishonesty (and the same must go for the present tort) must be distinctly alleged and as distinctly provide; that it must be sufficiently particularised; and that it is not sufficiently particularised if the facts pleaded are consistent with innocence … This means that a plaintiff who alleges dishonesty must plead the facts, matters and circumstances relied on to show that the defendant was dishonest and not merely negligent, and that facts, matters and circumstances which are consistent with negligence do not do so. … 186. … It is not open to the court to infer dishonesty from facts which have not been pleaded, or from facts which have been pleaded but are consistent with honesty. There must be some fact which tilts the balance and justifies an inference of dishonesty, and this fact must be both pleaded and proved.”

(emphasis supplied)

[152]Mr Askan submits that “D maintained and published the altered mapping and later created a new title. Such conduct demonstrates at least reckless indifference to legality, satisfying the mental element of misfeasance” ([23] to [25] POC).

[153]Mr Askan relies on the second form of misfeasance identified by Lord Steyn submitting that the combination of(i) his counsel’s report,

(ii) Ordnance Survey’s confirmation that the plotting lines were added by HMLR

(iii) HMLR’s confirmation that the 1908 conveyance was the root of title to the Property but denying his claim to more extensive ownership that the Property all provides information to support his contention that at a minimum HMLR were acting recklessly.

[154]Mr Askan submits that this reckless form of misfeasance requires cross examination and disclosure and consequently is a triable issue. It is not suitable for summary judgment. I do not agree.

[155]For the reasons set out below this claim is so hopeless that it should be struck out. Mr Askan’s counsel’s report is not “evidence” of anything at all. The plotting lines argument goes nowhere for the reasons set out above and neither does the argument that Mr Askan is entitled to the additional land he seeks by means of asking HMLR to rectify the register. There is no new title and there has been no alteration to the register of the Property since 2010 let alone since 2019 when Mr Askan acquired it.

[156]There is no basis for advancing a claim in misfeasance. It is entirely fanciful and not remotely arguable. There is no credible basis for this element of the claim. It has no real prospect of success at all.

[157]There is a more fundamental problem with the claim in misfeasance. Mr Askan has failed to advance a coherent, recognisable claim. A claim in misfeasance has to be fully set out and particularised as a precursor to being able to advance the claim at all. It would require Mr Askan to have set out the facts, matters and circumstances that allow for a finding of misfeasance/bad faith (see Lord Millet at [184] above) to the same level of particularisation as a claim in fraud or dishonesty.

[158]For the reasons set out above HMLR have not in fact altered the register as alleged. However, Mr Askan does not identify what it is about HMLR’s alleged conduct that ‘tilts the balance’ towards bad faith/dishonesty over negligence. He has not set out what it is about HMLR’s conduct that establishes that HMLR exercised its statutory obligations for an improper or ulterior motive. He has not set out any evidence that HLMR acted knowing they had no power to alter the register (as Mr Askan alleges they did) but did so anyway knowing it would injure Mr Askan.

[159]Mr Askan has not identified or set out in his POC the different elements of the cause of action and has not fully particularised it. He has not set out the primary facts relied on nor the basis for any inference he asks the court to draw (see Lord Millett above). Mr Askan has not begun to address the difficulties with this aspect of his claim. The court cannot infer bad faith, fraud or dishonesty from facts and matters that have not been pleaded – there has to be something to anchor such a finding. There has been no attempt to comply with the rules of pleading in relation to this very serious allegation of misfeasance and maladministration. The apparent facts relied on do not begin to support the claim Mr Askan seeks to advance. It appears to me to be based on a misconception of both the role of HMLR and the law.

[160]Whilst I am satisfied that the HMLR would be entitled to reverse summary judgment on this element of the claim in any event, it seems to me that given the failure to plead a coherent recognisable claim in misfeasance and maladministration the claim should be struck out under CPR 3.4(2) (a). As advanced this part of the claim is hopeless and unwinnable and allowing it to continue would be a waste of both the parties’ the court’s resources and time.

[161]As Ms Holmes suggests Mr Askan’s complaint appears to stem from his own apparent misunderstanding of the extent of the Property when he acquired it in 2019. It appears from the losses he seeks that he had an intention to and may still have an intention to develop the Property. It is not HMLR’s “fault” if the extent of the Property is limited to that which was registered at the time he acquired it. That is nothing to do with HMLR. They have registered him with title to the Property which he acquired and have done nothing to injure him, and they certainly have not done that through malice or any reckless indifference as to whether applying the LRA 2002 might injure him.

Damages for breach of Article 1 Protocol 1 to the ECHR

[162]At POC [22] and [30(d)] Mr Askan alleges that HMLR have breached his rights under Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR entitling him to damages. He puts his claim as: “D’s unlawful interference, depriving him of land without lawful authority or compensation, breached his right to peaceful enjoyment of property”.

[163]I agree with Ms Holmes that this claim is hopeless: i) HMLR has not deprived Mr Askan of “land”. Mr Askan is the registered proprietor of the Property. ii) His complaint in relation to the Contested Land does not give rise to a claim as it is not HMLR that is “depriving” him of being treated as proprietor of the Contested Land but rather the decision in the Wrexham proceedings. And subject to his application to the ECHR he has exhausted his rights of appeal. The law has determined that he does not have the property rights he seeks to assert in the Contested Land. The plotting lines make no difference at all to this part of his claim. He cannot use a claim for rectification against HMLR which is hopeless and unarguable to circumvent the decision in the Wrexham proceedings. iii) His complaint about the AP Land is also misplaced. No one has yet deprived him of any entitlement to be treated as proprietor of the AP Land. The FTT will determine whether he is entitled to assert those property rights and (subject to any appeals) if he is then he will be entitled to be registered as proprietor. iv) In any event, damages would only be awarded for breach of one or more of the rights protected under the Human Rights Act 1998 where such was “necessary to afford just satisfaction”. Given the position set out above it is difficult to see that Mr Askan would be able to satisfy that requirement in this case in any event.

[164]Again, this part of the claim is hopeless, unwinnable and a waste of time and resources. There are no reasonable grounds for it. It should also be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2) (a).

[165]I am satisfied that it is consistent with the overriding objective and good case management in the exercise of my broad discretion to deal with cases justly, proportionately, and efficiently that this claim should either be struck out or HMLR should be entitled to reverse summary judgment. Although the court exercises those powers sparingly I am satisfied that this is a proper case to do so.

[166]Whether on the basis of reverse summary judgment or strike out Defendant’s Application is granted and the claim fails.

[167]For completeness, as set out above the claim is hopeless and based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of HMLR and what has occurred factually. If Mr Askan considers that there is some proper basis on which to advance a claim to the balance of the yellow land in the 1908 conveyance he will need to advance a claim to it on notice to any other interested parties as he did when he commenced the Wrexham proceedings. As I have alluded to in this judgment I have significant misgivings about the claim so far as it affects the Contested Land and to a lesser extent the AP Land. Whilst HMLR have not advanced their application on the basis of abuse it seems to me that the claim is abusive both because of the manner in which it has been advanced for example the claim in misfeasance and under Article 1 Protocol 1 but also the overlap with the Wrexham proceedings and the FTT proceedings.

[168]Although this claim is only advanced against HMLR and so the parties to this claim and those other proceedings are not co-extensive the connection and overlap between the real substance of the claims, the disputes and issues is clear and obvious. In reality both the Club and the City Council would have needed to be parties to this claim had it proceeded and given the remedies sought.

[169]So far as this claim relates to the Contested Land it appears to me to be an attempt to have another go or be a collateral attack on the Wrexham proceedings and is abusive. It seems to me that it is at a minimum an attempt to circumvent the Wrexham proceedings and without involving the Club. In respect of the AP Land it appears to be an attempt to short circuit or undermine the FTT proceedings without involving directly the City Council and in the circumstances set out above it is abusive for that reason too.

[170]This would provide an additional or supporting basis for the strike out and reverse summary judgment determination were it needed.

The Claimant’s Application

[171]I had already considered Mr Askan’s separate and later stay application which I refused for the reasons I gave at the time. The Claimant’s Application sought to strike out the Defendant’s Application as vexatious and abusive and sought to stay “all related proceedings including the ongoing REF/2024/0620 … before the First Tier Tribunal, and any enforcement of prior land-related proceedings”.

[172]This can be dealt with shortly in light of my determination on the Defendant’s Application. Mr Askan’s opposition to the Defendant’s Application did not require him to issue a separate application to oppose it. It added nothing to his strength of feeling about the Defendant’s Application and it was unnecessary.

[173]There was nothing abusive or vexatious in HMLR issuing a properly constituted application to strike out Mr Askan’s claim or for reverse summary judgment. Mr Askan did not need to issue an application to oppose the Defendant’s Application he simply needed to file his evidence in opposition as he did. In the event Defendant’s Application has been wholly successful for the reasons set out above.

[174]Mr Askan also sought a stay of the FTT proceedings and enforcement of the Wrexham proceedings.

[175]Any application to stay the FTT proceedings should be on notice to the City Council in the FTT. The City Council are not parties to this claim. Any application to stay enforcement proceedings in relation to the Wrexham proceedings should be made in those proceedings when and if any enforcement action is taken by the Club. The Club should be given notice of such an application and have the opportunity to make any submissions.

[176]It does not appear to me that even if I had the jurisdiction to stay those other proceedings it would not have been consistent with the overriding objective or good case management to have exercised my discretion to stay those proceedings at all and certainly not without notice to the parties to those proceedings and providing them with an opportunity to make representations.

[177]Mr Askan advanced no proper basis for seeking to stay the FTT proceedings pending determination of this claim and no proper basis for seeking to stay enforcement of the Wrexham proceedings and I refuse his application for a stay in any event.

[178]Indeed, the stay application highlighted the intended abusive nature of this claim. As this claim is now at an end there is no further reason for this part of the Claimant’s Application in any event.

[179]The Claimant’s Application was misguided, unnecessary and should not have been issued at all in these proceedings. It should be dismissed.