Kayalaipilai Suhitharan v Henryk Jan Iwaskiewicz
Decision date: 16 May 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKUT 144 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: medium
This appeal concerned an FTT order rectifying the register to transfer a garage and drive from title no.2 to no.4. The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding the applicant had not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that there were two distinct mistakes (omission from no.4 and inclusion in no.2) and directing reversal of the FTT alteration. The Tribunal also held that, had the FTT finding of mistake stood, paragraph 6(2) Schedule 6 would have protected the drive (possession) but not the garage.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium
The decision establishes that where separate registered titles and intervening events exist, an applicant for rectification must prove separately the mistaken omission from one title and the mistaken inclusion on the other, on the balance of probabilities; old pre-registration deeds and an estate agent brochure alone do not suffice without further investigation into historic registers and timing of first registration.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The Tribunal observed (obiter) that no enhanced standard of proof is required merely because two mistakes are alleged, and that part-possession can engage paragraph 6(2) Schedule 6 (protections for a proprietor in possession) so that possession of part of disputed land need not be treated by an "all or nothing" approach.