High Court of England and Wales sets aside possession order after post-execution alteration added property without borrower’s consent
The High Court of England and Wales has ruled that a legal charge securing a loan became void after a solicitor altered the signed document without obtaining consent from the borrower or confirming the change with the lender.
In Boult v Together Personal Finance Ltd, Mr Justice Michael Green described the alteration as “somewhat extraordinary” and concluded that the change rendered the security ineffective. The court also set aside a possession order that had previously been made against the borrower.
The case arose from a bridging loan arranged in 2018 by Myranna Boult. She intended to repay existing borrowing secured against her home and agreed to use her house as security for the new loan. A neighbouring field was not intended to form part of that security arrangement.
Boult first became aware that the field had been included in the legal charge when she attended her solicitors and declined to sign the document presented to her. She returned the following day and signed a revised version of the charge that covered only her house.
However, after the document had been signed, an individual from the lender’s solicitors, Priority Law, altered the executed charge to include the neighbouring field as additional security. The amended version was then registered at HM Land Registry without Boult’s knowledge.
Although the charge over the field was later removed within a few months, the loan itself remained unpaid. The lender subsequently issued possession proceedings based on the legal charge.
Boult argued that the alteration invalidated the charge entirely. She relied on the long-established rule in Pigot’s Case, which provides that a material alteration to a deed made after execution without authority may render the document void.
At first instance, His Honour Judge Porter-Bryant concluded that the amendment amounted to an innocent mistake or administrative error and therefore did not engage the rule in Pigot’s Case. Boult appealed that decision, arguing that the addition of another property to the charge after execution constituted a material alteration that invalidated the security.
Allowing the appeal, Mr Justice Green found that the alteration had been deliberate. Although the solicitor may have believed that the parties intended the field to be included, the change was made after the borrower had signed the document and without checking the position with her or, apparently, with the lender.
The judge said he found it “somewhat extraordinary” that a solicitor would amend a signed legal charge in this way without returning to the borrower to confirm what had been agreed. He added that such alterations would normally be initialled by the parties involved.
Mr Justice Green also observed that permitting documents to be altered after execution without consultation created risks that the rule in Pigot’s Case was designed to prevent.
Because the alteration involved the addition of a further property after execution and without authority, the court concluded that the legal charge was void. The earlier decision treating the change as an administrative error could not stand.
As a result, the possession order obtained by the lender was set aside.