Askan v HM Land Registry: High Court strikes out claim built on a fundamental misreading of registered title

The Business and Property Courts have struck out a claim against HM Land Registry ("HMLR") after Master Kaye found that the claimant, Mr Cam Askan, had fundamentally misunderstood both the scope of his registered title and the limited statutory role of the Registry. The judgement, handed down on 5 June 2026, provides a clear restatement of the conclusive effect of registration under s.58 of the Land Registration Act 2002 ("LRA 2002") and the narrow circumstances in which Schedule 4 rectification is available.

Mr Askan is the registered proprietor of Old Bank Buildings, High Street, St Asaph (title number CYM496106), a former HSBC branch he acquired in 2019 for £93,000. The property was first registered by HSBC in June 2010 on the basis of two 1908 conveyances, though HSBC sought registration only of the land shown on its application plan.

HMLR duly registered that land, minus two small parcels already forming part of the adjacent Red Lion Pub title.

The resulting title plan has remained unchanged since 2010 save for the substitution of Mr Askan as registered proprietor.

Mr Askan's position was that the 1908 root of title entitled him to a considerably more extensive area than that registered, encompassing both a parcel of disputed land to the west (the "Contested Land") and a strip to the south-west known as the "AP Land".

He commenced proceedings against HMLR claiming rectification of the register, indemnity under Schedule 8, declarations that HMLR had acted ultra vires, and damages for misfeasance in public office and breach of Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR, with claimed losses of approximately £135,000.

The claim faced insuperable difficulties from the outset. HMLR demonstrated that the register had not been altered since Mr Askan's registration in 2019. The Contested Land had been the subject of separate county court proceedings in Wrexham, in which His Honour Judge Humphries found in favour of the neighbouring St Asaph Conservative Club in February 2025. Mr Askan's attempts to appeal, including a renewed oral application before Mr Justice Constable, had failed, and no further domestic avenue remained open to him. The AP Land, meanwhile, is the subject of a first registration application by St Asaph City Council on the basis of adverse possession, referred to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) following Mr Askan's objection, with ownership still undetermined.

Master Kaye found that the claim against HMLR was misconceived on every ground. The extent of the registered title was precisely what HSBC had sought to register in 2010 and what Mr Askan had acquired in 2019. The fact that the 1908 conveyances covered a larger area was irrelevant: HSBC had not sought to register that broader extent and the remaining land had not passed to Mr Askan by virtue of his 2019 transfer. To accept Mr Askan's interpretation of s.58 LRA 2002, the court observed, would "undermine the ability to place any reliance at all on the register" by suggesting that registered titles might conceal hidden ownership of additional land derived from unrecited root conveyances.

The court also addressed Mr Askan's argument concerning "plotting lines" (pecked lines visible on the Club's title plan when magnified), which he had characterised as evidence of a fraudulent or unlawful alteration of the Club's title.

[Figure 5]

HMLR had explained that such lines are standard drafting tools used where a boundary extends beyond identifiable physical features on the Ordnance Survey base map, and carry no legal significance. Master Kaye accepted that explanation without reservation, noting that the existence of the lines said nothing about Mr Askan's entitlement to the land in question.

On misfeasance in public office, the claim was struck out both for substantive hopelessness and for wholesale failure to plead the cause of action to the requisite standard, following the principles in Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No 2) [2003] 2 AC 1. No facts were identified that could "tilt the balance" from negligence to bad faith, and Mr Askan had made no attempt to particularise the mental element of the tort. The Article 1 Protocol 1 claim was dismissed on the straightforward basis that HMLR had not deprived Mr Askan of any land he owned.

Master Kaye expressed "significant misgivings" about the proceedings more broadly. In substance, the claim sought to relitigate the Contested Land dispute without joining the Club as a party, and to short-circuit the FTT proceedings on the AP Land without involving the City Council. That rendered the claim, in the court's assessment, at minimum an attempt to circumvent the Wrexham proceedings and, in relation to the AP Land, an abuse of process.

The defendant's application for reverse summary judgement and strike out was granted in its entirety. Mr Askan's own application, which sought to strike out HMLR's application as vexatious and to stay both the FTT proceedings and enforcement of the Wrexham order, was dismissed.

Cam Askan v HM Land Registry [2026] EWHC 1352 (Ch). Mr Askan appeared in person. Harriet Holmes (Government Legal Department) appeared for the defendant.