Expert Witness Journal Issue 68 August 2026 - Flipbook - Page 97
Boult v Together Personal Finance Ltd
by Robert Paterson, Partner at Wedlake Bell LLP.
“
Boult v Together Personal Finance Ltd [2026] EWHC
809 (Ch) raises what Michael Green J described as
“the interesting issue as to the proper application
in modern times of the 400-year-old rule in Pigot’s
Case (1614) 11 Co.Rep. 26.” The rule provides that a
material alteration to a deed or other instrument
after execution by one party without the knowledge
or consent of the other renders it void.
Together Personal Finance Limited, a 昀椀nance
company, had lent money to Ms Myranna Boult
on the security of her home. It brought possession
proceedings. Ms Boult defended the proceedings,
relying on the rule in Pigot’s Case, on the basis that
the legal charge which the 昀椀nance company was
seeking to enforce had been altered in manuscript
after execution to include another property owned
by her, a 昀椀eld to the west side of her house with a
separate title number. That was indeed the position.
The alteration had been made in the erroneous
belief that the 昀椀eld was to be included with the
house as security for the 昀椀nance company’s loan
to Ms Boult. The amended legal charge was then
registered at HM Land Registry on the titles of both
the house and the 昀椀eld.
He also held that the judge below had erred on
materiality: he had been wrong to be in昀氀uenced by
the fact that the 昀椀nance company had reversed the
alteration when it found out about it and had only
sought to enforce its rights against the house, so that
Ms Boult had not su昀昀ered any actual or potential
prejudice:
“
At 昀椀rst instance, the judge in the County Court found
in favour of the 昀椀nance company, concluding that
the rule in Pigot’s Case was not engaged because (a)
the alteration was an accident or mistake and (b) was
not material. He made a possession order and gave a
money judgment in favour of the 昀椀nance company.
By reference to Chitty on Contracts (36th edn)
Michael Green J identi昀椀ed two elements to the
rule: 昀椀rst, the alteration must have been made
deliberately (the promisor is not discharged if the
alteration is made by accident or by mistake); second,
the alteration must have been material.
At the time the alteration was made by the solicitor
and the Legal Charge was registered against the
Field, there was clearly ‘potential prejudice’ to the
Appellant. She was at risk of enforcement action
being taken by the Respondent against the Field.
Because of her experience with Blemain Finance,
she thought that she had been the victim of a fraud.
It was only by chance that she discovered what had
happened; and it was only actually reversed after the
police had become involved.”
He went on to say:
“
He held that the 昀椀rst limb of the rule was not
satis昀椀ed:
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
The simple fact of the matter is that, whether or not
the solicitor was acting under a mistaken belief as to
what the Legal Charge was to cover, they deliberately
added a new property to the Legal Charge after it had
been signed by the Appellant and without checking
with her (or seemingly their client) that this was what
was agreed. They then made it potentially enforceable
against the Field by registering it against the
Field’s title number. This was therefore a deliberate
alteration, on behalf of the Respondent, designed
to a昀昀ect the rights and obligations under the Legal
Charge, in that another property was made subject
to the security.”
95
The point of the rule in Pigot’s Case is to deter people
from doing this sort of thing. The Judge should have
found that the alteration was material at the time
it was made and the Legal Charge was accordingly
void at that point. Whatever happened subsequently,
such as the Respondent removing the charge over the
Field and only seeking to enforce against the House,
AUGUST 2026
