The Issue
A deed must be signed, witnessed and delivered by the person whose act it purports to be. Where it is common ground that the person did not sign the operative annotated version, the question of how their signature page came to appear on a materially different version is not a technicality — it is the central issue in the case. It cannot be bypassed by treating non-signature as legally immaterial through the inference of ratification.
The Law: How It Should Operate
LP(MP)A 1989 s.1(3) — an instrument is not a deed unless signed by the individual in the presence of a witness who attests the signature. Mercury Communications v Director General [1996] — a composite document requires identification of what was executed and when. Gerko v Seal [2023] — courts must not impose unrealistic proof burdens where the relying party has concealed relevant facts. The obligation to prove execution lies with the party relying on the instrument.
How It Operated in Lawrence v HNW Lending Ltd
The court acknowledged Ms Lawrence did not sign the annotated operative version but treated this as legally immaterial, inferring ratification and adoption without requiring HNW to prove who created the deed, how the signature page appeared on it, or how escrow was released. The burden shifted to Ms Lawrence to disprove an instrument she had not signed, rather than to HNW to prove one she had.
"The question is not whether one court reached one adverse result. It is that the same failure of protection recurred across courts, tribunals, administration, policing and oversight — making the pattern visible only because the case passed through so many forums."
— Open Letter to the Lord Chancellor, 15 May 2026