Land Registration – Costs – Jurisdiction of The First-Tier Tribunal – jurisdiction of the Upper Tribunal to hear appeals – procedure – fairness – litigant in person – appeal allowed
[2021] UKUT 27 (LC)
England and Wales
Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.658042
A transfer of part of land identified the land by reference to a red line on a plan being part of a registered. The court held that the seller’s covenants of title implied under the rules took effect subject to the interests of the registerd owners of the land not part of the seller’s title.
Held: The buyer’s appeal succeeded. The red line did include land not in the seller’s title. ‘The Register’ referred not to the full Land Registry registers, but to the register entries for the particular title at issue. The vendors were liable for the breach of covenant of good title. Lord Justice Dillon: ‘The transfer is concerned to differentiate between three parcels of land . . and it does so exclusively by reference to the plan on the transfer and the colouring on that plan . . the colouring on the plan is thus the dominant description of each parcel . . where parcels in a conveyancing document as described by reference to a plan attached to the documents, the natural inference is that it was the intention that anyone should see from the documents alone, which means from the plan on it what land the document was purporting to pass.’
Lord Justice Dillon
[1987] Ch 287, [1987] 2 WLR 167
Land Registration Rules 1925 76 77
England and Wales
Cited – Beale v Harvey CA 28-Nov-2003
Land had been divided into three lots on its development, but the site plan did not match the line of a fence actually erected.
Held: The court was not bound by the Watcham case, and would not follow it to allow reference to the later . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.235517
Lands Registration – Practice and Procedure – Striking Out of Proceedings – statement of case -unilateral notice – breach of trust – appeal allowed
[2021] UKUT 32 (LC)
England and Wales
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.658043
Challenge to entitlement to caution
[2015] EWLandRA 2013 – 0964
England and Wales
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.552850
[2005] EWHC B15 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.229272
Land Registration – Beneficial Interests, Trusts and Restrictions
[2019] UKUT 245 (LC)
England and Wales
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.640521
Land Registration – Costs – Without Prejudice Offers
[2019] UKUT 214 (LC)
England and Wales
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.640514
[2008] EWCA Civ 1308
England and Wales
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.278250
[2008] ScotCS CSOH – 155
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.277778
This case concerns how the loss should fall on innocent victims of mortgage frauds practised by Tracy and John Whale (otherwise known as John Sinclair) with the assistance of an apparently incompetent or fraudulent conveyancing clerk employed by Messrs Curry Popeck and then later by Messrs Pulvers. The exercise is necessary so that those suffering loss may pursue professional negligence claims or enforce the respective firms’ vicarious liability for the fraud of their employee, which claims have yet to be adjudicated upon.’
Held: On the registration of a registrable disposition, equitable interests binding the disponer do not bind the disponee as interests in land, even if the disponee was a party to the creation of those interests
Norris J
[2008] EWHC 1692 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.277328
A person with a reasonably arguable case in support of the existence of the interest claimed had ‘reasonable cause’ to enter a unilateral notice against a registered title to protect such an interest, even where a court later ruled against the existence of the interest claimed.
Morgan J
[2011] EWHC 1849 (Ch)
England and Wales
Cited – Nugent v Nugent ChD 20-Dec-2013
The court was asked whether the court has, following the the 2002 Act, an inherent power to order the cancellation of a unilateral notice registered against a title registered under the 2002 Act and, if so, in what circumstances, and how, such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.519748
The court heard an appeal against an order by the Land Registry adjudicator holding in favour of the existence of a parking easement.
Purle QC HHJ
[2008] EWHC 2901 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.278310
Neighbouring land owners disputed the boundary of their registered plots.
Held: The plans provided to the court and those based upon the land registry were inadequate properly to identify the boundaries. One plan of unspecified origin did give sufficient detail and settled the dispute against the defendant.
The Honourable Mr Justice Peter Smith
[2003] EWHC 2546 (Ch)
England and Wales
Cited – Hambrook v Fox CA 8-Feb-1993
The general boundaries rule does not mean that the plan used in a contract or transfer may be ignored. . .
Cited – Lee v Barrie CA 1957
Plans from Land Registration certificates of title are inadequate to set out boundaries accurately.
Otherwise: Lee v Barrey . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.187473
Boundary dispute
[2006] EWHC 1991 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.263674
Land Registration – Unilateral Notice – Contract for The Sale of Land
[2018] UKUT 394 (LC)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.631023
The bank had sought and obtained an order recognising the vaidity of its charge over the land. The land had belonged to the defendant, but he said that the property had been registered by a fraudulen ttransfer, and charged by the transferee in the name of the third party who had in turn charged it to the bank. The court had said that the transfer was voidable, not void, and that therefore the charge was effective. The defendant now sought leave to appeal.
Held: Leave was refused. By virtue of s58 of the 2002 Act and the other provisions of that Act the register is conclusive, subject only to its rectification pursuant to the provisions of the Act itself. Lloyd LJ was prepared to accept that Mr Guy (who was unrepresented) had an arguable case that the transfer to Ten Acre was not voidable but void and that the registration of Ten Acre as proprietor was a mistake that should be corrected, but it did not follow that the registration of the bank’s charge was also a mistake within the meaning of paragraph 2. There was no prospect of Mr Guy being able to establish notice on the part of the bank.
Carnwath, Lloyd LJJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 452
England and Wales
Appeal from – Barclays Bank Plc v Guy ChD 16-Jan-2008
The defendant owned development land in Manchester. Under a transfer apparently signed by him the land came to be registered in the name of a company called Ten Acre Ltd, creating a charge in favour of Barclays Bank, which was duly registered on the . .
See Also – Guy v Barclays Bank Plc CA 8-Dec-2010
In an earlier action the claimant said that he had been defraused of land by a forged transfer. The transfereee had charged the land to the respondent bank who in that action gained a decision that its charge was effective, the transfer being . .
Cited – Gold Harp Properties Ltd v Macleod and Others CA 29-Jul-2014
The company appealed against an order re-instating to the register leases which the company said it had forfeited for non-payment of rent. After the forfeiture, the landlord had granted new leases. It appealed saying that exceptional circumstances . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270366
The defendant claimed ownership as Lord Marcher of St Davids of historical rights in foreshores in Pembrokeshire. The claimants sought removal of his cautions against first registration.
Held: Lewison J explored the history of manorial holdings and how the Welsh land holding systems had been incorporated under English law. The claimant had established a right of wreck but not otherwise over either the foreshore or the seabed.
Lewison J
[2008] EWHC 1302 (Ch), [2008] 24 EG 141, [2008] 4 All ER 828, [2008] 2 P and CR 15
Statute of Quia Emptores 1290, Lords of Marches of Wales Act 1354, The Act of Union 1535, Treasure Act 1996, Game Act 1831
England and Wales
Cited – Corpus Christi College Oxford v Gloucestershire County Council CA 1983
The court considered the result where the freehold of what had formerly been waste of the manor became severed from the lordship.
Held: It ceased to be part of the manor. Lord Denning MR described the historical basis of the ownership of land . .
Cited – Roberts v Swangrove Estates Ltd and Another ChD 14-Mar-2007
The court heard preliminary applications in a case asserting acquisition of land by adverse possession, the land being parts of the foreshore of the Severn Estuary.
Held: A person may acquire title to part of the bed of a tidal river by . .
Cited – Attorney General of Hong Kong v Fairfax Limited PC 17-Dec-1996
(Hong Kong) A lease had been granted containing a covenant that the tenant would build villa residences only on the land. In breach of that covenant many high rise properties had been erected over many years. The applicant, now respondents, had . .
Cited – Spook Erection Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 1989
Nourse LJ explained the nature of a franchise in land: ‘The right which was granted to one Anthony Bourchier by the letters patent of 29 June 1637 was a franchise; an incorporeal hereditament which has been authoritatively defined as a royal . .
Cited – The Case of the Royal Fishery of the Banne 1610
A royal fishery did not pass by a general grant of all fisheries, because general words in a grant did not pass ‘special royalty which belongeth to the Crown by prerogative’. . .
Cited – The Rebeckah 26-Feb-1799
Lord Stowell discussed the rationale behind the inversion in cases involving the Crown of the principle that a clause is to be construed against the proposer saying that: ‘the prerogatives and rights and emoluments of the Crown being conferred upon . .
Cited – HIH Casualty and General Insurance Limited v New Hampshire Insurance Company Independent Insurance Company Limited Axa Reinsurance S A CA 21-May-2001
A claim was made under a re-insurance policy which supported film finances. The re-insurers resisted the claim on the grounds of misrepresentation. Rix LJ: ‘In principle it would seem to me that it is always admissible to look at prior contracts as . .
Cited – Viscountess Rhondda’s Claim HL 1922
(Committee of Privileges of the House of Lords) Viscountess Rhondda asserted a right to sit in the House of Lords as a member, relying on the 1919 Act.
Held: It is incorrect for a court to draw conclusions from such elements of the . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Trustees of the British Museum 1903
A right to treasure trove did not pass by general words in a Crown charter, but had to be expressly granted. . .
Cited – The Attorney-General v Parmeter And Others In Re Portsmouth Harbour CEC 1811
The defendants claimed rights under a charter granted by Charles I in 1628 granting lands and marshes subject to the overflowing of the sea. The charter declared that it had been granted in consideration and as compensation for the future expense of . .
Cited – Great Eastern Railway v Goldsmid 1884
The City of London Corporation had implicitly given up a franchise consisting of an exclusive right to markets within London that had apparently been conferred on it by an Act or charter of Edward III in circumstances in which it had acquiesced for . .
Cited – Anon 1704
If a man has a right of any wreck thrown upon another’s land he has a right of way over the same land to take it: ‘Originally all wrecks were in the Crown and the King has a right of way over any man’s ground for his wreck; and the same privilege . .
Cited – Dickens v Shaw 1822
A right to ‘wreck’ will not of itself confer a title by presumption of law to the ownershipof the soil above the shore as against the Crown.
Holroyd J discussed whether a grant of a right of wreck include also any right in the land: ‘I think . .
Cited – Duke of Somerset v Fogwell 1826
Where a subject is owner of a several fishery in a navigable river, where the tide flows and reflows, granted to him (as must be presumed) before Magna Charta, by the description of ‘separalem piscariam,’ that is an incorporeal and not a territorial . .
Cited – Berkeley Peerage case 1858
Lord St Leonards explained section 1 of the 1660 Act which removed all the ‘fruits and consequents’ of tenure in capite of the Crown: ‘Not only were all tenures in capite . . taken away, but the lands were for ever turned into free and common . .
Cited – In Re Jolly CA 1900
Mrs Jolly let a farm to her son who paid rent until 1881, but not thereafter, and her title to the farm was extinguished in 1893. She died in 1898. The question which arose was whether at her death any rent arrears remained due.
Held: The . .
Cited – Mount Carmel Investments Limited v Peter Thurlow Limited CA 1988
The court considered a defence to an assertion of adverse possession, that the plaintiff had given notice of his intention to recover the land: ‘no one, either lawyer or non-lawyer, would think that a householder ceases to be in possession of his . .
Cited – Feather v The Queen 1865
Mr Feather had invented way of protecting ships against shot and obtained an exclusive patent. The Crown then had a ship constructed in a way that infringed the patent. As patentee Mr Feather asked for recompense; by petition of right he asked for . .
Cited – Neill v Duke of Devonshire HL 1882
The House considered the right to a several fishery in the river Blackwater. There were letters patent granted by James I and Charles I. Held; Lord Selborne LC said: ‘These written titles (if the possession and enjoyment has been consistent with . .
Cited – Walker and Another v Burton and Another CA 14-Oct-2013
The Burtons had purchased the former Hall of the village of Ireby, and been registered as proprietors of the Lordhsip of the Manor. The villagers had successfully challenged the registration. The Court now considered the circumstances in which the . .
Cited – Lynn Shellfish Ltd and Others v Loose and Another SC 13-Apr-2016
The court was asked as to the extent of an exclusive prescriptive right (ie an exclusive right obtained through a long period of use) to take cockles and mussels from a stretch of the foreshore on the east side of the Wash, on the west coast of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.269728
The court was asked as to the right of a transferee of the reversion to forfeit a lease in the period before registration of the transfer. Staughton LJ said that since the transferee did not yet have a legal estate and the claim was based on the existence of a legal title for its validity, the claim failed.
Staughton LJ
[1992] 25 HLR 121
England and Wales
Cited – Ferrishurst Ltd v Wallcite Ltd CA 30-Nov-1998
A person in actual occupation of registered land at time of transfer can enforce his rights against the transferee. A sub-underlessee in occupation of part could enforce an option to purchase against the freeholder acquiring intermediate registered . .
Cited – Scribes West Ltd v Relsa Anstalt and others CA 20-Dec-2004
The claimant challenged the forfeiture of its lease by a freeholder which had acquired the registered freehold title but had not yet registered its ownership. The second defendant had forfeited the lease by peacable re-entry for arrears of rent, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.187689
A registered land transfer is a sub-species of written instrument; and the principles that apply to the interpretation of written instruments apply equally to land transfers.
Rimer LJ said: ‘That required a consideration of the February conveyance in the context of the surrounding circumstances in which it was granted, and having regard also to any evidence properly admissible for the purposes of its interpretation. It is a statement of the obvious that the crucial provision in the conveyance was the parcels clause, since it was there that the parties identified the land being conveyed. It is, however, fundamental that the parcels clause in a conveyance should not be considered in isolation from the remainder of the document. It is a general, and basic, principle of the construction of documents that questions of interpretation should be answered by considering the document as a whole, since only then can the provision giving rise to the question be seen in its proper context. There can be no reason for this principle not to be equally applicable in relation to the interpretation of a conveyance for the purpose of identifying the limits of the land conveyed by it.’
. . And: The formula ‘for the purpose of identification only’ is one whose use is time-honoured. Its ordinary sense is that a plan so described is intended to do no more than identify the position and situation of the land: it is specifically not intended to identify its precise boundaries. The use of such a plan is therefore strictly only appropriate for a case in which the verbal description in the parcels identifies the limits of the land with adequate precision since it is a formula which indicates that the verbal description is intended to be decisive in that respect. Such a plan ‘cannot control the parcels in the body of any of the deeds’ (Hopgood v Brown [1955] 1 WLR 213, at 228, per Jenkins LJ); it ‘cannot therefore be relied upon as delineating the precise boundaries and in any case the scale is often so small and the lines marking the boundaries so thick as to be useless for any purpose except general identification’ (Wibberley, supra, per Lord Hoffmann).’
Rimer LJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 384, [2008] 2 P and CR 8
England and Wales
Cited – Drake and Another v Fripp CA 3-Nov-2011
The parties disputed the location of the boundary between their properties. An appeal against the adjudicator’s award altering the filed plan.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘there was no restriction on the adjudicator’s power to direct the Land . .
Cited – Drake and Another v Fripp CA 3-Nov-2011
The parties disputed the location of the boundary between their properties. An appeal against the adjudicator’s award altering the filed plan.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘there was no restriction on the adjudicator’s power to direct the Land . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266985
Appeal against order made in landlord and tenant possession proceedings. The tenant said that the judge had approached the case unfairly, and in particular had rejected out of hand the tenants assertion of a document as a lease.
Held: The criticisms of the judge had some weight. As to whether the document created a lease: ‘a parole tenancy will take effect as an interest at will only, and will not suffice as a periodic tenancy for purposes of the 1954 Act, unless it falls within subsection 2 of section 54 as being a parole lease for a term not exceeding three years at the best rent.’
Laws, Rix, Jacob LJJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 283
Land Registration Act 2002 29, Law of Property Act 1925 54, Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 54(2)
England and Wales
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266489
Barling J
[2018] EWHC 2564 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.628930
The claimant sought rectification of the land register. In a development deal, an option agreement had not been registered, and the land sold on. The land was required to allow the building of a roundabout necessary for the intended store. An application had been made for registration of the option, but requisitions had not been answered. The purchaser had bought the land from chargees of the buyer, and who were aware of the possible legal interest of the claimant.
Held: ‘the main characteristics of an option are that it is an undertaking to sell property to the grantee if the latter wishes to purchase it, usually within a specified period.’ An option had been created which was not void for uncertainty, and an equitable interest had arisen in favour of the claimant. On cancellation of the application for first registration, the land reverted to the seller on trust for the buyer who then had only an equitable interest. His chargee had therefore only an equitable interst and could proceed to enforce his charge only by a court order. The order made only affected the buyer’s equitable estate, and therefore the chargee was unable to convey the legal estate. The claimant had established that it would be unjust for the rectication not to be made.
The Honourable Mr Justice Mann
[2005] EWHC 1235 (Ch)
Law of Property Act 1925 90, Land Registration Act 1925, Land Registration Act 2002 65 Sch 4
England and Wales
Cited – London and Blenheim Estates v Ladbroke Retail Parks Ltd CA 1-Jun-1993
The land-owner sold part of his land, granting easements over the retained land, and an agreement that, if further plots were purchased, similar easements would be granted. The agreement stated that the purchaser should have the right to give notice . .
Cited – Pearce v Watts CA 9-Jun-1875
An agreement for the sale included the reservation: ‘[The Vendor] reserves the necessary land for making a railway through the estate to Prince Town.’ Specific performance was sought by the purchaser, and the vendor objected that it was void for . .
Cited – London and South Western Railway Co v Gomm CA 1882
A grant was given to repurchase property, but was void at common law for the uncertainty of the triggering event.
Held: The ‘right’ to ‘take away’ the claimants’ estate or interest in the farm was immediately vested in the grantee of the right . .
Cited – Midland Bank Trust Co Ltd v Green (No 1) HL 11-Dec-1980
A father had granted an option over land to his son, but it had not been registered. The father later tried to frustrate the option by conveying the land to his wife for 500 pounds. The land was worth 40,000 pounds. When the son found out about it, . .
Cited – James Hay Pension Trustees Ltd v Cooper Estates Ltd ChD 20-Jan-2005
The court ordered rectification of the land register where not to do so would give the then registered proprietor an unattractive and uncovenanted ransom position. . .
Cited – Horrill v Cooper CA 1999
(Year?) The appelant had bought unregistered land knowing of restrictive covenants and paying accordingly, but the covenants had not been registered and his title was free of them. He now appealed an order for rectification of the register which had . .
Cited – Horrill v Cooper QBD 1998
Restrictive covenants were registered against unregistered land, but were not revealed by a subsequent formal search with the result (as found) that as matter of technicality the purchaser took free from them. However, that purchaser knew of the . .
Cited – Pallant v Morgan ChD 1952
The agents of two neighbouring landowners orally agreed in the auction room that the plaintiff’s agent would refrain from bidding at auction and that the defendant, if his agent’s bid was successful, would divide the land according to an agreed . .
Cited – Banner Homes Group Plc v Luff Developments and Another CA 10-Feb-2000
Competing building companies agreed not to bid against each other for the purchase of land. One proceeded and the other asserted that the land was then held on trust for the two parties as a joint venture.
Held: Although there was no formal . .
Cited – Greasley v Cooke 1980
For a proprietary estoppel to arise the plaintiff must have incurred expenditure or otherwise have prejudiced himself or acted to his detriment. However, once it has been established that promises were made, and that there has been conduct by the . .
Cited – Gillett v Holt and Another CA 23-Mar-2000
Repeated Assurances Created Equitable Estoppel
Repeated assurances, given over years, that the claimant would acquire an interest in property on the death of the person giving the re-assurance, and upon which the claimant relied to his detriment, could found a claim of equitable estoppel. The . .
Cited – Gold Harp Properties Ltd v Macleod and Others CA 29-Jul-2014
The company appealed against an order re-instating to the register leases which the company said it had forfeited for non-payment of rent. After the forfeiture, the landlord had granted new leases. It appealed saying that exceptional circumstances . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.226740
The defendants had succeeded in an application before the Land Registry adjudicator for a strip of land adjoining their property to be registered in their name after a finding that they had successfully established a claim by adverse possession. The claimants had developed the adjoining land leaving the strip unbuilt upon. A fence had been erected by agreement in 1986.
Held: The developer’s appeal failed. Whilst the adjudicator’s reasons were not as full as they might have been, they were sufficient and he had had a proper basis in the evidence to support his conclusion. Since the 12 year period had expired before the Human Rights Act came into effect, the occupation was not subject to a human rights challenge.
Briggs J
[2007] EWHC 141 (Ch)
Civil Procedure Rules 52.11(3)
England and Wales
Cited – Flannery and Another v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd, Trading As Colleys Professional Services CA 18-Feb-1999
A judge at first instance taking a view on an expert’s report should give reasons in his judgment for that view. On appeal, where no reasons had been given, he should be asked to provide reasons by affidavit for the appeal. An inadequately reasoned . .
Cited – Batsford Estates (1983) Company Ltd v Taylor and Another CA 29-Apr-2005
The company owner eventually made a positive decision not to take any possession proceedings against the occupiers following service of a notice to quit. The occupiers then remained in possession for more than 12 years.
Held: After serving a . .
Cited – London Borough of Lambeth v Rumbelow ChD 25-Jan-2001
The court considered what would constitute permission to occupy land so as to destroy a claim for adverse possession. Etherton J said: ‘In order to establish permission in the circumstances of any case two matters must be established. Firstly, there . .
Cited – Rowley and Another v Secretary of State for Transport Local Government and the Regions Admn 24-May-2002
The inspector after holding an inquiry had confirmed the decision of the county council to make an order modifying the definitive map by the inclusion of a footpath over the objectors’ land.
Held: The decision by the Secretary of State . .
Cited – English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd; etc, (Practice Note) CA 30-Apr-2002
Judge’s Reasons Must Show How Reached
In each case appeals were made, following Flannery, complaining of a lack of reasons given by the judge for his decision.
Held: Human Rights jurisprudence required judges to put parties into a position where they could understand how the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.248359
Application for leave to appeal against order for rectification of title to land.
Parker LJ
[2001] EWCA Civ 1983
England and Wales
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.218594
LRA Prescriptive right of way established by the Applicants for the benefit of their home over a strip of roadway belonging to the Respondents who were on notice of their use of that land. The use of the way with vehicles was to and from a parking place immediately outside the Applicant’s home on land that was not owned by either party. Held that that did not prevent a prescriptive right of way from being acquired.
[2012] EWLandRA 2011 – 0988
England and Wales
Cited – Harris v Flower CA 1904
The servient land-owner alleged an excessive user by which it was attempted to impose an additional burden on the servient tenement in the use of a right of way for obtaining access to a factory erected partly on the land to which the right of way . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.510151
The parties contracted to buy and sell a property. The lending bank sought possession, saying that it had advanced the money which had been spent acquirng the property. The defendant purchasers said that completion had not taken place, the full price had not been paid, possession had not been given, and the parties had agreed to rescission.
Held: An executed transfer had been delivered. That delivery had not been explicitly in escrow, but the full purchase price had not been paid. The possibility that a vendor’s lien could apply ‘shows that it is perfectly possible in law for a vendor to complete a transfer unconditionally, even where part of the purchase price has not been paid.’ In this case the document had not been delivered in escrow.
The vendors were to be taken to have consented to their vendors’ lien being subordinated to the interests of the claimants. The Bank was entitled to register its charge.
Morgan J
[2007] EWHC 2747 (Ch)
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 1(5)
England and Wales
Cited – Bowker v Burdekin 1843
Parke B considered how a court identified whether a document had been delivered in escrow: ‘you are to look at all the facts attending the execution, to all that took place at the time, and to the result of the transaction; and therefore, though it . .
Cited – Thompson v McCullough CA 1947
Thompson had agreed to buy a tenanted property, had paid part of the purchase price, and had received a conveyance in escrow pending payment of the balance. He at that point gave McCullough notice to quit. Two months later Thompson paid the balance . .
Qualified – Watkins v Nash 1875
The instrument at issue was delivered to the solicitor acting for the party intended to benefit under it. It was claimed that it was delivered in escrow.
Held: On the detailed facts the delivery was not intended to be a delivery to the . .
Qualified – London Freehold and Leasehold Property Company v Suffield 1897
Where an instrument is delivered to the party who is to benefit under the instrument, any oral statement that the delivery is not an absolute delivery of the deed is of no effect. Where several persons are parties to a deed as grantees and one of . .
Cited – William Cory and Son Limited v Inland Revenue Commissioners CA 1964
Lord Denning MR discussed what was meant by delivery of a document in escrow: ‘When an instrument is delivered in escrow, that only means that it is delivered on condition (which may be expressed or implied by conduct) that it is not to be operative . .
Cited – Bentray Investments Limited v Venner Time Switches Limited ChD 1985
Stuart-Smith J discussed the circumstances under which a deed was said to have been delivered in escrow: ‘the passages to which I have referred seem to establish that the intention of the maker must be made clear, at least where the deed is . .
Cited – Kettlewell v Watson 1884
A vendor’s lien was postponed to the equitable interest of a third party with whom the purchaser from the vendor had had dealings. . .
Cited – Barclays Bank Plc v Estates and Commercial Limited CA 20-Feb-1996
Millett LJ discussed the assertion of a vendor’s lien where a third party would be adversely affected: ‘A party with an equitable charge can be taken to agree to the postponement of his property against any party who was allowed to his knowledge to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261500
Peter Leaver QC
[2007] EWHC 2087 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.260342
A Determined Boundary application relating to the boundary between two semi-detached properties.
[2018] UKFTT 168 (PC)
England and Wales
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.616305
The defendants appealed an order refusing title by adverse possession to registered land. They denied that the limitation period had been restarted by their solicitor’s letter acknowledging the title.
Held: The letter must be read as a whole. As such it was an admission of title. The requirement that the possession be adverse requires only that the possession was not pursuant to a licence, whether express or implied, from the owner. This is because possession is not adverse if it is enjoyed under a legal title. Whether a person with limited permission to use or occupy land might rely on more extensive activity to claim adverse possession is a question of fact turning on the circumstances of the case.
Ward LJ, Moore-Bick LJ, Lawrence Collins LJ
[2007] EWCA Civ 216
England and Wales
Cited – Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Lambeth v George Bigden and Others CA 1-Dec-2000
A block of flats had been occupied over several years by a succession of squatters. The present occupiers appealed an order for possession, and the authority appealed refusal of possession for other flats. The occupiers asserted possessory title. . .
Cited – Richardson v Younger 1871
When there are two joint claimants to possessory title, and it is said that they had acknowledged the paper owner’s title, the acknowledgment must be given by or on behalf of both of them. . .
Cited – Edginton v Clark CA 1964
An offer to purchase the paper owner’s interest, even if made ‘subject to contract’, can be a sufficient acknowledgement of his title to defeat a claim for adverse possession. Upjohn LJ said: ‘If a man makes an offer to purchase freehold property, . .
Cited – Asbury v Asbury 1898
A defendant to a claim for adverse possession made by two joint claimants, and who asserts an acknowledgement of his title must show that the acknowledgement was by both claimants. . .
Cited – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Others v Graham and Another HL 4-Jul-2002
The claimants sought ownership by adverse possession of land. Once the paper owner had been found, they indicated a readiness to purchase their interest. The court had found that this letter contradicted an animus possidendi. The claimant had . .
Cited – Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran CA 13-Feb-1989
The parties’ respective properties were separated by a fence or hedge and the true owner had no access to the disputed land. In 1967 the Defendants’ predecessors in title began to maintain the land by mowing the grass and trimming the hedges and . .
Cited – Powell v McFarlane ChD 1977
Intention to Establish Adverse Possession of Land
A squatter had occupied the land and defended a claim for possession. The court discussed the conditions necessary to establish an intention to possess land adversely to the paper owner.
Held: Slade J said: ‘It will be convenient to begin by . .
Cited – Riyad Bank and others v Ahli United Bank (Uk) Plc CA 23-Nov-2005
A renewed application for leave to appeal was made as regards a valuation element of the judgment. New expert evidence was sought to be admitted.
Held: Leave was refused: ‘the Court of Appeal should be particularly cautious where what is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249954
Appeal against adjudicator’s decision to refuse to order registration of benefit of a private right of way over an access way.
Roger Kaye QC HHJ
[2007] EWHC 1171 (Ch), [2008] 1 All ER 397, [2007] 1 WLR 2543
England and Wales
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.259655
Opinion – The court’s opiniin was sought on whether an entry in a title sheet in the Land Register of Scotland, may competently be reduced in Judicial Review proceedings.
Gordon Reid QC
[2006] ScotCS CSOH – 65
Scotland
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241370
Mr Justice Morris
[2021] EWHC 13 (Admin)
Land Registration Act 2002 73(6)
England and Wales
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.657330
Land Registration – Adverse Possession
[2019] UKUT 176 (LC)
England and Wales
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.638285
Alteration and Rectification of The Register : Mistake
[2018] UKFTT 576 (PC)
England and Wales
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.630810
Application for leave to appeal – boundary dispute.
Lord Justice May Lord Justice Jacob
[2005] EWCA Civ 1638
England and Wales
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238623
Land Registration – Beneficial Interest
[2019] UKUT 141 (LC)
England and Wales
Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.637272
Briggs J
[2008] EWHC 1143 (Ch)
England and Wales
Cited – Barclays Bank Plc v Kingston and others QBD 17-Mar-2006
. .
Cited – National Westminster Bank Plc v King ChD 20-Feb-2008
The court ordered the transfer of a claim for possession to the county court even though the county court itself had no original power to hear such a claim. . .
Cited – National Westminster Bank plc v Skelton (Note) 1993
The court distinguished a claim by the mortgagee for possession from a claim on the mortgagor’s personal covenant to pay what was due. A claim for a set-off is merely a sub-species of counterclaim. The court will not readily imply a term into a . .
Cited – Ashley Guarantee plc v Zacaria CA 1993
In possession proceedings based on a mortgage debt, the mortgagee’s right to possession of the mortgaged property will not be defeated by a cross-claim of the mortgagor in the absence of some contractual or statutory provision to the contrary. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.268729
Claim for restoration to possession by tenant.
[2008] EWHC 1591 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.270907
Hudoc No violation of Art. 6-1 ; No violation of P1-1 ; No violation of Art. 13
The applicant complained that the unification of two parcels of land occupied by him, and registered in the Austrian land registry, and without his consent, infringed his property and human rights. The procedure did not require his consent. He complained that the unification would prevent him being able to sell the land as two plots.
Held: No infringement had occurred. He had not been deprived of any ownership of land, and there was no dispute resolved unfairly. He had not been deprived of any possessions.
23379/94, [2003] ECHR 38
European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 13
Human Rights
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.178762
Peter Gibson, Neuberger LJJ, Sir Martin Nourse
[2005] EWCA Civ 478
England and Wales
Cited – Chambers v London Borough of Havering CA 20-Dec-2011
The defendant appealed against an order for him to surrender possession of land he had claimed by adverse possession. The Council was the registered proprietor. The defendant said he had used the land since 1981 for dumping of motor vehicle parts. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.224775
[2005] EWHC 669 (Ch)
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.224312
The claimants had sought entry into theirs and their neighbour’s registered land titles of entries to acknowledge their rights of way. The neighbours appealed the finding of a right of way of necessity and by proprietary estoppel, and an order for rectification.
Held: The appeal failed. The restriction on rectifying the register contained in section 82(3) Land Registration Act 1925 does not apply to rectification ‘for the purpose of giving effect to an overriding interest or an order of the court’. Moreover as that subsection and section 70(3) Land Registration Act 1925 both show there is no prohibition on noting an overriding interest on the register.
Lord Justice Clarke The Vice Chancellor Lord Justice Parker
[2005] EWCA Civ 227
England and Wales
Appeal from – Sweet and Another v Sommer and Another ChD 25-Jun-2004
Part of land had been sold off. By oversight no right of way had been taken in favour of the retained land. The dominant owner argued that by demolition of a building a means of access could be found and that therefore no right of way by necessity . .
Mentioned – Celsteel Ltd v Alton House Holdings Ltd ChD 1985
An equitable easement (a right of way), which was not protected by any entry on the register, was a right openly exercised and enjoyed as appurtenant, in this case to a garage, and it adversely affected registered land as an overriding interest. The . .
Cited – Bakewell Management Limited v Brandwood and others HL 1-Apr-2004
Houses were built next to a common. Over many years the owners had driven over the common. The landowners appealed a decision that they could not acquire a right of way by prescription over the common because such use had been unlawful as a criminal . .
Cited – E R Ives Investments Ltd v High CA 14-Dec-1966
One exception to the requirement that an easement must be granted by a deed is that if permission to enjoy a right, capable of constituting an easement, is given by the landowner in terms likely to lead, and that do lead, the beneficiary of the . .
Cited – Birmingham Midshires Mortgage Services Ltd v Sabherwal CA 17-Dec-1999
An equity arising from a proprietary estoppel is not an ‘equitable interest’ capable of being overreached pursuant to section 2 of the Law of Property Act 1925. . .
Cited – Shiloh Spinners Ltd v Harding HL 13-Dec-1972
A right of re-entry had been reserved in the lease on the assignment (and not on the initial grant) of a term of years in order to reinforce covenants (to support, fence and repair) which were taken for the benefit of other retained land of the . .
Cited – Saeed v Plustrade Ltd CA 20-Dec-2001
The court considered a parking management scheme imposed by freeholders on an estate. The result would be to reduce the number of parking spaces from 13 to 4.
Held: (Sir Christopher Slade) ‘The lease in terms conferred upon the lessee ‘the . .
Cited – Adealon International Proprietary Ltd v London Borough of Merton ChD 12-Apr-2006
The claimant had bought land originally bought from the defendant, but after a long series of events, the only available access was over the retained land. It sought a right of way of necessity.
Held: At the time of the grant, other access was . .
Cited – Chaudhary v Yavuz CA 22-Nov-2011
The court was asked ‘whether and if so how an easement arising informally and not protected by any entry at the Land Registry can be effective against a purchaser of the land over which the easement would be exercised.’ The parties respectively . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223500
Acquisition of land by adverse possession
[2005] EWHC 209 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223169
The claimant challenged the forfeiture of its lease by a freeholder which had acquired the registered freehold title but had not yet registered its ownership. The second defendant had forfeited the lease by peacable re-entry for arrears of rent, and created a further lease.
Held: The judge was right to hold that, following the transfer, RB was the person entitled to the income of the land, and that therefore the forfeiture was valid.
Rix, Mummery, Carnwath LJJ
[2004] EWCA Civ 1744, [2005] 1 WLR 1847
England and Wales
See Also – Scribes West Limited v Relsa Anstalt and Another (No 1) CA 1-Jul-2004
The court handed down a New Practice Direction 52 for grounds of appeal, decisions in permissions to appeal, notices to respondents of appeals, appeal bundles etc. . .
See Also – Scribes West Limited v Relsa Anstalt and Another (No 2) (Practice Note) CA 20-Jul-2004
The court gave guidance on the destination of appeals from county court cases. It was vital to identify the precise nature of the order under appeal: ‘The judges of this court (and the staff at the Civil Appeals Office) have to interpret the order . .
Cited – In re Rose, Rose v Inland Revenue Commissioners CA 1952
The deceased had executed instruments of transfer and delivered them with the relevant certificates to the transferees.
Held: The transfers were transferred the whole of the deceased’s title both legal and equitable in the shares and all . .
Cited – Rose v Watson HL 7-Mar-1864
The buyer had paid deposits under an unconditional contract for the purchase of land induced by the misrepresentations of the seller. On discovering the falsity of the representations the buyer rescinded the contract and successfully resisted a . .
Cited – Matthews v Usher CA 1900
Section 25(5) of the 1873 Act did not give to a mortgagor any power of re-entry or right of forfeiture which he did not have before the Act. Romer LJ described the mortgagor’s position before the 1873 Act: ‘He had certain equitable rights and . .
Cited – Fairclough v Marshall CA 1878
The plaintiff owned land charged by a previous owner who had rented it subject to the defendant’s predecessor subject to a covenant not to use it as an beerhouse. The defendant now used it as a beerhouse, and said that since the plaintiff had . .
Cited – Trent v Hunt 1853
A mortgagor in possession continues to have a legal right to receive the rents in his own name. However since he had no legal interest in the reversion, he could not forfeit for breach of covenants in the lease. . .
Cited – William Brandt’s Sons and Co v Dunlop Rubber Co HL 1905
The court was asked whether instructions given by the bank’s customer to purchasers of rubber to make payment to its bank directly, amounted to an equitable assignment of debts, so that the bank could sue for their recovery. The bank sued the . .
Cited – Turner v Walsh CA 1909
The landlord sought to enforce the tenant’s repairing covenants. After the tenancy had been created, he had charged his interest. The tenant said that, since the lessor had conveyed his interest by way of mortgage, the right to sue lay exclusively . .
Not approved – Schalit v Joseph Nadler Ltd CA 1933
Mr Nadler was a lessee of property, part of which he sublet to the plaintiff. In 1931 he made a declaration of trust, under which he declared that the property was held in trust for his company, Joseph Nadler Ltd. Shortly after the company purported . .
Cited – Inland Revenue Commissioners v John Lewis Properties Ltd CA 20-Dec-2002
The taxpayer company purchased properties to be occupied by other companies within the same group. Having granted leases, they assigned the rental income for the first six years to a bank in return for a capital payment. They then sought relief from . .
Cited – Crumpton v Unifox Properties CA 1992
The court was asked as to the right of a transferee of the reversion to forfeit a lease in the period before registration of the transfer. Staughton LJ said that since the transferee did not yet have a legal estate and the claim was based on the . .
Cited – Wembley National Stadium Ltd v Wembley (London) Ltd and Others ChD 4-Apr-2007
Land at Wembley stadium had been sold to the defendants and leased back. The defendant assigned the freehold within the group, declaring that the lease was held in trust for the original freeholder. The claimant now said that the defendant assignee . .
Distinguished – Stodday Land Ltd and Another v Pye ChD 7-Oct-2016
The agricultural landlord sold part of his land subject to the respondent’s tenancy to the appellant. Before the transfer was registered, notices to quit were served by both the landlord and his buyer. The tenant challenged both notices in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220495
The lessors sued the original lessees for rent due under the lease after the term had been assigned to another. The lessors had given a licence to assign and the licence contained a guarantee from a third party to the lessors that the assignee would pay the rent etc. Subsequently the lessors released the guarantee. The original lessees contended that the release of that guarantee released them from their covenant in the lease to pay the rent. The obligation was in the following form: ‘The tenant for itself and its assigns and to the intent that the obligations may continue throughout the term covenants with the landlord as set out in the third schedule hereto.’
Held: The court rejected that contention: ‘it is quite clear that the position is not as between the assignee and the original lessee that of principal debtor and surety.’ The fact of assignment mattered ‘not one jot or tittle.’
Walton J
[1984] 1 EGLR 16
Land Registration Act 1925 24(1)
England and Wales
Cited – Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz CA 24-Jul-2003
Leases had been granted. They had been assigned to the defendant who had assigned them again. The last assignee became insolvent and statutory demands were served on the claimant under the 1995 Act for rent. The claimant paid the sums due and now . .
Cited – Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz ChD 11-Apr-2006
The defendant had taken assignments of the term of two underleases from the claimant, and then re-assigned them to a limited company with guarantors of the rent, and they in turn re-assigned the leases. The last company became insolvent. The . .
Cited – JBW Group Ltd v Westminster City Council CA 12-Mar-2010
The tenant had applied to the landlord for consent to assign certain leases. The court had declared the right to exercise break clauses in certain leases as lost. The court had found the right to be lost after the assignment of the leases by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.186113
Marsh CM
[2019] EWHC 949 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.636152
Eastern : To Determine Reasonableness and Payability of Service Charges
[2018] UKFTT RP – CAM – 00KF –
England and Wales
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.635990
Longmore, Rimer, Tomlinson LJJ
[2012] EWCA Civ 1508
England and Wales
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.466378
Appeal from rejection of claim to registered land by adverse possession.
Prosser QC HHJ
[2012] EWHC 3085 (Ch), [2013] 1 Ch 363, [2013] 2 WLR 844, [2012] WLR(D) 319, [2012] 47 EG 126, [2013] 1 P and CR 22, [2013] 2 All ER 84
England and Wales
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.465802
The claimant sought orders restraining certain uses of its property by a former tenant, the defendant. The defendant sought to register a title by adverse possession.
Held: The defendant was not restricted from making such a claim by virtue of the existence of anti-social behaviour injunction proceedings.
Eady J
[2012] EWHC 3129 (QB), [2013] 1 WLR 1253, [2013] 5 EG 98, [2013] 1 EGLR 69, [2012] WLR(D) 325, [2012] 46 EG 121
England and Wales
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.465692
[2002] EWCA Civ 1079
England and Wales
Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.175214
Application for a determined boundary under section 60 of the Land Registration Act 2002.
[2016] EWLandRA 2012 – 0599
England and Wales
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.562124
LRA Sale and lease back of their home by the applicants to the second respondent – the applicants allege that the transfer and the lease are a nullity as they were forged on behalf of the second respondent – alternatively, the applicants allege that the transfer and the lease should be set aside as they were induced to enter into them by a fraudulent representation made on behalf of the second respondent.
[2016] EWLandRA 2012 – 0953
England and Wales
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.564460
LRA Alteration of the register – Land Registration Act 2002 Schedule 4 paragraph 5 – Sale pursuant to an order for sale obtained following default judgment – default judgment set aside but order for sale not set aside or appealed
[2016] EWLandRA 2014 – 0645
England and Wales
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.564461
[2016] EWLandRA 2015 – 0339 – 0340
England and Wales
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.562122
[2015] EWLandRA 2015 – 0211
England and Wales
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.559407
[2016] EWLandRA 2015 – 0343
England and Wales
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.562119
[2015] EWLandRA 2013 – 0472 – 0473
England and Wales
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.559403
[2015] EWLandRA 2014 – 0668
England and Wales
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.559404
[2016] EWLandRA 2015 – 0125
England and Wales
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.562117
[2015] EWLandRA 2015 – 0176
England and Wales
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.559408
[2016] EWLandRA 2014 – 0938
England and Wales
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.562121
[2016] EWLandRA 2015 – 0272
England and Wales
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.562118
[2015] EWLandRA 2014 – 0779
England and Wales
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.559405
[2016] EWLandRA 2015 – 0297
England and Wales
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.562116
[2015] EWLandRA 2014 – 0941
England and Wales
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.559406
Adverse possession
[2015] EWLandRA 2015 – 0065
England and Wales
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.554112
[2015] EWLandRA 2015 – 0174
England and Wales
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.554111
[2015] EWLandRA 2014 – 0618 – REC –
England and Wales
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.554108
Claim to right of way by prescription- prescription at common law and lost modern grant
[2015] EWLandRA 2014 – 0799
England and Wales
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.554110
Application for cancellation of caution – resisted.
[2015] EWLandRA 2014 – 0854
England and Wales
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.554109
Issues – rectification of a transfer made in 1992 – whether there was a mutual mistake as at the date of the transfer – whether the equity of rectification bound subsequent purchasers – whether the previous purchasers were in ‘actual occupation’ pursuant to section 70(1)(g) of the Land Registration Act 1925 – whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to rectify.
[2014] EWLandRA 2013 – 0036
England and Wales
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.552859
The registered land comprised a shop subject to a restrictive covenant restricting sale of tobacco products and sweets. By mistake, the covenant was not noted in the Register. The (unregistered) leasehold of the premises was assigned to purchasers who wished to sell such products: since the covenant was not registered they had no notice of it. The beneficiary of the covenant then successfully applied to the Chief Land Registrar for the Register to be rectified so as to include notice of the covenant on the Charges Register. On appeal the purchasers asserted that notwithstanding the rectification the covenant was not binding on them. The beneficiary of the covenant sought an injunction.
Held: (ex tempore) The claims failed. Walton J was surprised that rectification had been ordered in the first place, but in any event its effect was not to bind the purchasers. Part of the argument turned on the construction of section 50(2) of the 1925 Act, providing that an incumbrance would affect the title only from the date that it was entered on the Register. Counsel for the beneficiary of the covenant had submitted that that was inconsistent with the general scheme of the Act. Walton J rejected that submission, saying: ‘It appears to me that the general scheme of the Act is that one obtains priority according to the date of registration, and one is subject, or not subject, to matters appearing on the register according to whether they were there before or after one took one’s interest, whatever that interest might be. That seems to me to be the only sensible way in which the provisions of the Act can all be made to mesh together.’ He continued: ‘the Act is clear . . it is only matters that are actually registered at the time that the disposition is made which affect the person who derives title under the registered proprietor.’
Walton J
Walton J
[1976] Ch 288
England and Wales
Cited – Gold Harp Properties Ltd v Macleod and Others CA 29-Jul-2014
The company appealed against an order re-instating to the register leases which the company said it had forfeited for non-payment of rent. After the forfeiture, the landlord had granted new leases. It appealed saying that exceptional circumstances . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.535827
LRA General Boundaries Rule – Boundary dispute. Construction of plans. Whether adjournment should be granted due to the illness of the witness for the Applicant. Whether the Applicant should be permitted to re-open a dispute previously determined by the Solicitor to the Land Registry
[2006] EWLandRA 2005 – 0441
England and Wales
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.517388
LRA Conveyance of sporting and manorial rights – whether it includes the freehold of the waste – claimed adverse possession of a common – effect of registration as owner of common land under Commons Registration Act 1965
[2010] EWLandRA 2008 – 1498
England and Wales
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.467673
LRA Beneficial Interests, Trusts and Restrictions : Other – Right of Reverter – Adverse Possession – Intention to Possess – Charities – Unincorporated Association – Parish Club and Reading Room — Literary and Scientific Institutions Act 1854 – Limitation Act 1939 – Reverter of Sites Act 1987
[2006] EWLandRA 2005 – 0779
England and Wales
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.517389
LRA Respondent held to be entitled to charge under section 22 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Act 1983 although it was declared only after the death of the person provided with accommodation.
Cases referred to: St Helen’s Borough Council v Manchester Primary Care Trust, [2008] EWCA Civ 931; Coughlan v East Devon Health Authority; Wychavon District Council v EM [2012] UKUT 12 (AAC); Kent County Council v Fremlin, REF/2010/756; Brighton and Hove City Council v Gibney, REF/2012/26; Hertfordshire CC v Wilson, REF/2004/547.
[2013] EWLandRA 2012 – 0866
Health and Social Services and Social Security Act 1983 22
England and Wales
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.516920
The general boundaries rule does not mean that the plan on a transfer may be ignored.
Peter Gibson LJ
Unreported, 30 November 1994
England and Wales
Cited – Geoffrey Allan Chadwick, Sylvia Joyce Chadwick, Edward James Chadwick v Abbotswood Properties Ltd, Gordon Leonard Hauser, Pamela Ann Hauser, Rectory Pump Ltd ChD 18-May-2004
Between to new houses was a steep bank. Who owned it? Before the transfer there had been different plans and much correspondence.
Held: Where there was doubt as to the extent of land transferred, the court could look to the physical boundaries . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 June 2022; Ref: scu.197732
deed 5 transferring leasehold property : unilateral notice
[2017] UKUT 103 (TCC)
England and Wales
Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.584665
The defendant had registered a caution against the claimant’s land at the Land Registry. The claimant sought its removal and now appealed an order for rectification of the register against him. The parties had reached oral agreements as to the boundaries. Though nothing was formalised, they were acted upon. The mutual benefit and burden issue can only be tried properly in other proceedings with pleadings and joinder of all interested parties.
There had been an oral agreement for the exchange of lands between neighbours, but it had not been completed by transfers.
The President, Mummery LJ, Rix LJ
[2001] EWCA Civ 510
Land Registration Act 1925, Land Registration Act 1986
England and Wales
Cited – Williams and Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland HL 19-Jun-1980
Wife in Occupation had Overriding Interest
The wife had made a substantial financial contribution to the purchase price of the house which was registered only in her husband’s name, and charged to the bank. The bank sought possession. The wife resisted saying that she had an overriding . .
Cited – Williams and Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland CA 1979
Money was raised on mortgage of registered land and paid to a single trustee holding the land on trust for sale, and it was held that the rights of beneficiaries who were in occupation and of whom no enquiries had been made were not mere minor . .
Cited – Thatcher v Douglas and Another CA 19-Dec-1995
The Court rejected the contention that Celsteel was wrongly decided and that the Rule only applied to legal easements. The court followed Celsteel and applied it to equitable easements, holding them to be overriding interests by virtue of Rule 258. . .
Cited – Celsteel Ltd v Alton House Holdings Ltd ChD 1985
An equitable easement (a right of way), which was not protected by any entry on the register, was a right openly exercised and enjoyed as appurtenant, in this case to a garage, and it adversely affected registered land as an overriding interest. The . .
Cited – Tito v Wadell (No 2) ChD 1977
The liability to account for profits on breach of the self-dealing rule and the fair-dealing rule does not arise from a breach of duty at all. In his judgment such liability is the consequence of an equitable disability rather than of a breach of . .
Cited – Halsall v Brizell ChD 1957
Land in Liverpool was sold in building plots. The vendors retained the roads and sewers and a promenade and sea wall. A separate deed of covenant of 1851 between the vendors and the owners of the plots which had by then been sold, recited that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200956
Land Registration – Rights of Way
[2019] UKUT 81 (LC)
England and Wales
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.635207
The fact of possession of land by the registered proprietor was a factor to be given special effect when a court considered an application to rectify the register. The presumptions following from the registration of the land with title absolute, meant that possession of the land gave the proprietors ownership unless, and until, that presumption was displaced, and the Act gave the judge a discretion.
Times 27-Feb-2001, Gazette 26-Apr-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1215, [2001] EWCA Civ 20
Administration of Justice Act 1977, Land Registration Act 1925 82
England and Wales
Cited – Malory Enterprises Ltd v Cheshire Homes (UK) Ltd and others CA 22-Feb-2002
The applicant said that its land had been misappropriated, and sought rectification of the register against the respondent who was a successor in title having bought the land from the wrongdoer.
Held: On registration, section 69 operated to . .
Cited – Pinto v Lim ChD 19-Apr-2005
The parties had been owners of a property. The defendant was thought to have forged a transfer of the house into her sole name, and then sold on the property to her brother, who was innocent of the forgery. The claimant, on returning to England . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.135613
[2004] EWCA Civ 122
England and Wales
Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.193610
An agreement to resolve a boundary dispute does not need to comply with formalities of the Act.
Sir Martin Nourse said: ‘The agreement between the parties served merely to demarcate the boundary between their respective properties. It had not purported to be a contract to convey any land from the claimant to the defendant. Accordingly, there had been no requirement for the agreement to be evidenced in writing as provided for in s 2(1).’
Sir Martin Nourse, Thorpe LJ, Arden LJ
[2004] EWCA Civ 79
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 2
England and Wales
Cited – Scarfe v Adams CA 1981
Transfer deeds for a sale of land did not define the boundary but referred to a plan which was held to be too small to show a precise boundary. The only other element of the parcels clause was that it was land adjoining Pyle Manor and that it was . .
Cited – Kingston v Phillips CA 1976
The court was asked to construe a parcels clause in a transfer: ‘It will be observed that the parcels as there set out are really almost devoid of any particularity; all that is said about the property conveyed is that it is part of the Chicklade . .
Cited – Geoffrey Allan Chadwick, Sylvia Joyce Chadwick, Edward James Chadwick v Abbotswood Properties Ltd, Gordon Leonard Hauser, Pamela Ann Hauser, Rectory Pump Ltd ChD 18-May-2004
Between to new houses was a steep bank. Who owned it? Before the transfer there had been different plans and much correspondence.
Held: Where there was doubt as to the extent of land transferred, the court could look to the physical boundaries . .
Cited – Bradley and Another v Heslin and Another ChD 9-Oct-2014
The parties were neighbours. One had a right of way over the other’s land. A gate existed over it. B wished to close the gate for security, but H wished it open in order to be able to drive through it without having to get out of his car, and so he . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.193625
There was a claim in trespass arising from mistakes arising on the setting up of a small residential development. An easement necessary to the enjoyment of the plots sold off, was required over land no longer owned by the grantor at the time of the apparent grant.
Held: The circumstances were not such as to allow an equitable easement to arise, and nor by any estoppel. He had stood by while, for example a garage had been built across the path of the purported easement. Appeal dismissed.
Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Chadwick And Lady Justice Hale
[2003] EWCA Civ 915
England and Wales
Cited – Amalgamated Investment and Property Co Ltd (in Liq) v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd CA 1982
The court explained the nature of an estoppel by convention.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘The doctrine of estoppel is one of the most flexible and useful in the armoury of the law. But it has become overloaded with cases. That is why I have not gone . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.184265
A couple bought a property and registered it in their own names with substantial financial assistance from the parents of one of them. The parents occupied the house with them. Without telling the parents, the owners borrowed again, executing further charges.
Held: The fact of occupation did not add to the parents’ rights as equitable chargees, or as tenants in common. A balance was to be found between making property available to be traded, and protecting the rights of equitable owners. The parents’ rights were overreached by the charges.
The provisions of the Land Registration Acts were designed to operate in parallel and consistently with the property legislation governing unregistered land.
Lord Oliver of Aylmerton: ‘ . . the philosophy behind both the Land Registration Act 1925 and the Law of Property Act 1925 was that they should operate in parallel, and it would, therefore, be surprising if it were found that the two systems were not constructed so as to dovetail into one another.’ and
‘If then, one asks what were the subsisting rights of the respondents [the occupying beneficiaries] referable to their occupation, the answer must, in my judgment, be that they were rights which, vis-a-vis the appellants [the mortgagee], were, eo instante with the creation of the charge overreached and therefore subsisted in relation to the equity of redemption.’
Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Templeman, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton and Lord Goff of Chieveley
[1988] AC 54, [1987] 3 All ER 435, [1987] 2 WLR 1266, [1987] UKHL 6
Law of Property Act 1925 14, Land Registration Act 1925 70(1)(g)
England and Wales
Distinguished – Williams and Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland HL 19-Jun-1980
Wife in Occupation had Overriding Interest
The wife had made a substantial financial contribution to the purchase price of the house which was registered only in her husband’s name, and charged to the bank. The bank sought possession. The wife resisted saying that she had an overriding . .
Appeal from – City of London Building Society v Flegg And Another CA 1986
Where money was raised on mortgage of registered land to discharge an existing incumbrance (and so in exercise of the power conferred by s.28(1) Law of Property Act 1925 by reference to s.71(1)(i) Settled Land Act 1925) and paid to two trustees for . .
Cited – Paragon Finance Plc v Pender and Another CA 27-Jun-2005
The defendants had purchased their property from the local authority with the support of a loan from the claimants. The defendants fell into arrears but now sought to resist possession on the basis that the claimant, in securitising their portfolio . .
Cited – Abbey National Building Society v Cann HL 29-Mar-1990
Registered land was bought with an advance from the plaintiff. The transfer and charge were registered one month later, but in the meantime, the buyer’s parents moved in. When the buyer defaulted, his mother resisted possession proceedings, saying . .
Cited – HSBC Bank Plc v Dyche and Another ChD 18-Nov-2009
The parties disputed the claimed beneficial interest of the second defendant. The second defendant (C) said that it had been purchased for him by the first defendant (D) from C’s trustee in bankruptcy, and was thereafter held in trust for him on the . .
Cited – Cook v The Mortgage Business Plc CA 24-Jan-2012
The land owners sought relief from possession orders made under mortgages given in equity release schemes: ‘If the purchaser raises all or part of the purchase price on mortgage, and then defaults, the issue arises whether the mortgagee’s right to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178245
(New Zealand) The appeal concerned the rating of properties. Where two properties were held under the same land certificates, was this enough to have require only one listing on the valuation roll. New Zealand uses the Torrens style of Land Registration, under which, it was argued, the unit of registration determined also entries for ‘separate properties’. This has its origin in Scots law. The authorities contended that the test was rather the unit of occupation.
Held: The expression ‘separate property’ was not defined. It was to be interpreted within the context in which it was used. In this case that meant rating, not land law, and it was dangerous to bring forward meanings for wordings from earlier statutes. Separate occupation was the correct criterion.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough
[2002]UKPC 47, [2003] RA 180
England and Wales
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.177998
The defendant appealed against an order for rectification of the registered title to land he occupied, and for which he had had a possessory title. The order had been made in his absence.
Held: A ‘good reason’ for non attendance at a hearing was not just an honest and genuine one, but the court must not be over-analytical. The court is to ascertain from the evidence what the true reason for non attendance at trial was and, looking at the matter in the round, to ask whether that reason is sufficient to entitle the applicant to invoke the discretion of the court to set aside the order. Here, the address for service was incorrect, the defendant was illiterate, and he had not received the notice. The fact of his illiteracy was relevant. There was good reason for non-attendance. Here, the defendant had lodged a statutory declaration in support of his application for possessory title, and it was unclear that the proceedings should have gone ahead on the basis that there would be no factual dispute. Appeal against the setting aside of the order dismissed.
Mummery LJ said: ‘There has been some debate before us, as there was before the judge, about what is or is not capable of being a ‘good reason.’ In my opinion the search for a definition or description of ‘good reason’ or for a set of criteria differentiating between good and bad reasons is unnecessary. I agree with Hart J that, although the court must be satisfied that the reason is an honest or genuine one, that by itself is not sufficient to make a reason for non-attendance a ‘good reason.’ The court has to examine all the evidence relevant to the defendant’s non-attendance; ascertain from the evidence what, as a matter of fact, was the true ‘reason’ for non attendance; and, looking at the matter in the round, ask whether that reason is sufficient to entitle the applicant to invoke the discretion of the court to set aside the order. An over analytical approach to the issue is not appropriate, bearing in mind the duty of the court, when interpreting the rules and exercising any power given to it by the rules, to give effect to the overriding objective of enabling it to deal with cases justly. The perfectly ordinary English phrase ‘good reason’ as used in CPR 39.3(5) is a sufficiently clear expression of the standard of acceptability to be applied to enable a court to determine whether or not there is a good reason for non-attendance.’
Lord Justice Mummery, Lady Justice Hale, and Lord Justice Carnwath
Times 18-Oct-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1135, [2003] CP Rep 7
England and Wales
Cited – Regency Rolls Ltd and Another v Carnall CA 16-Oct-2000
The court considered what was meant by ‘act promptly’ in the Rule.
Held: Dictionary definitions were considered by both Arden LJ and Simon Brown LJ – ‘with alacrity’ or ‘all reasonable celerity in the circumstances’. The court no longer has a . .
Cited – Estate Acquisition and Development Ltd v Wiltshire and Another CA 4-May-2006
The defendants appealed a decision that they had no sufficient reason for not attending court on the day of the trial.
Held: The fact that the defendants had a continuing commercial relationship with the claimants was not enough to justify an . .
Cited – Zambia v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others CA 9-Jul-2008
The claimant sought to allege fraud by its former president, and began proceedings to recover payments it said were fraudulent, including against a defendant Taylor in Switzerland, who now said that no letter before action or other explanation . .
Cited – WXY v Gewanter and Another QBD 30-May-2012
The claimant had obtained an injunction to restrain publication of what was private information. The third defendant now applied to set aside the judgment, saying that their application for an adjournment had been wrongly refused. He said that he . .
Cited – Kenny and Others v Abubaker and Others CA 23-Oct-2012
The defendant landlord sought to appeal against an order that he pay to the respondent tenants a penalty under the 2004 Act of three times the tenancy deposit. The court was now asked whether there was has any right to have set aside a judgment . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174447
Even if there existed an acknowledged error in the Land Registry, rectification was the only available remedy. The existence of an inaccuracy did not alter the legal reality that the registered proprietor had a right created by registration. In certain circumstances a unilateral error by the Keeper could be the subject of rectification.
Lord Macfadyen
1999 SC 513, [1999] ScotCS 43
Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979
Cited – Williams and Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland HL 19-Jun-1980
Wife in Occupation had Overriding Interest
The wife had made a substantial financial contribution to the purchase price of the house which was registered only in her husband’s name, and charged to the bank. The bank sought possession. The wife resisted saying that she had an overriding . .
Cited – Safeway Stores Plc v Tesco Stores IHCS 6-Jun-2003
The parties appealed a decision of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland ordering rectification of the land register. A small area had been registered to two registers, and an error had occurred on the digitisation of the plan.
Held: The system of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.170434
The first defendant appealed the award of interest on an order for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. It had declined to complete the purchase because the seller had not been registered as proprietor of the land, and the transfer to it had not been stamped.
Held: The transfer to the seller would not be stamped until after completion, and that was not a good reason for delaying completion. Interest was payable from the date requested for completion since the seller was able to complete on that date.
Sir Andrew Morritt, Vice-Chancellor, Lord Justice Mantell and Lord Justice Tuckey
Times 05-Apr-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 296
Land Registration Act 1925 37 110(5)
England and Wales
Cited – Urban Manor Limited v Sadiq CA 20-Feb-1997
Appeal by prospective purchaser of property from order that contract rescinded, and deposit forfeited. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168084
[2002] EWHC 330 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168057
The applicant said that its land had been misappropriated, and sought rectification of the register against the respondent who was a successor in title having bought the land from the wrongdoer.
Held: On registration, section 69 operated to vest only the legal title in the prior registered proprietor. The transfer being of no effect in law, it was not a ‘disposition’, and the beneficial owners retained the right to sue in trespass without prior rectification. The discretionary nature of the right of rectification did not prevent it being an over-riding interest under 70(1)(g), and that right was transmissible. Rectification could not be made subject to terms. The claimant being in actual occupation, so as to enjoy an overriding interest, their claim succeeded.
Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Clarke and Lady Justice Arden
Times 21-Mar-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 151, [2002] Ch 216, [2002] 3 WLR 1
Land Registration Act 1925 69 70(1)(g) 82
England and Wales
Cited – Chowood v Lyall (No 2) CA 1930
The transferees of land registered themselves as first registered proprietors of land including two narrow strips of woodland. The court had found that the strips in fact belonged to a neighbour who had acquired title by adverse possession.
Cited – Williams and Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland HL 19-Jun-1980
Wife in Occupation had Overriding Interest
The wife had made a substantial financial contribution to the purchase price of the house which was registered only in her husband’s name, and charged to the bank. The bank sought possession. The wife resisted saying that she had an overriding . .
Cited – Kingsalton Ltd and Another v Thames Water Developments Ltd and Others ChD 19-Jan-2001
The fact of possession of land by the registered proprietor was a factor to be given special effect when a court considered an application to rectify the register. The presumptions following from the registration of the land with title absolute, . .
Cited – Chaudhary v Yavuz CA 22-Nov-2011
The court was asked ‘whether and if so how an easement arising informally and not protected by any entry at the Land Registry can be effective against a purchaser of the land over which the easement would be exercised.’ The parties respectively . .
Criticised – Fitzwilliam v Richall Holdings Services Ltd ChD 28-Jan-2013
The claimant said that his property had been sold by someone falsely purporting to be his agent under a forged power of attorney. . .
Cited – Gold Harp Properties Ltd v Macleod and Others CA 29-Jul-2014
The company appealed against an order re-instating to the register leases which the company said it had forfeited for non-payment of rent. After the forfeiture, the landlord had granted new leases. It appealed saying that exceptional circumstances . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167949
The respondent occupied a flat as a tenant. The landlord had acquired it by means of a fraud on the claimant lender. The lender had been given an equitable charge over the property, and now claimed possession as subrogated to the original fraudulent owner. The tenant claimed to have taken and paid for a lease from one of the later parties to the fraud. He claimed an equitable charge by subrogation in priority to the claimant. The lender had not taken steps to register any caution to protect its interests.
Held: There are three requirements for subrogation. The money must have been used to pay the purchase price, that it had been paid by them solely for this purpose, and that the transaction was always to be on the basis that they would achieve a charge. Tracing is neither a claim nor a remedy but a process, and subrogation is a remedy, not a cause of action. The respondent was an innocent third party purchaser without notice of the claimant’s interest. There is a distinction between subrogation to a security, which includes rights in rem, and subrogation merely to the indebtedness itself which operated only in personam. The doctrine of subrogation is that, where A’s money is used to pay off B, a secured creditor, A is entitled in equity to an assignment of B’s security rights. The appeal failed, and the interest of the lender had priority.
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Laws, And, Lord Justice Jonathan Parker
[2002] EWCA Civ 121
England and Wales
Cited – Boscawen and Others v Bajwa and Others; Abbey National Plc v Boscawen and Others CA 10-Apr-1995
The defendant had charged his property to the Halifax. Abbey supplied funds to secure its discharge, but its own charge was not registered. It sought to take advantage of the Halifax’s charge which had still not been removed.
Held: A mortgagee . .
Cited – Banque Financiere De La Cite v Parc (Battersea) Ltd and Others HL 16-Apr-1998
The making of an order for restitution after finding an unjust enrichment by subrogation, is not dependant upon having found any common or unilateral intention of the parties. The House distinguished between contractual subrogation of the kind most . .
Approved – Burston Finance Ltd v Spierway Ltd ChD 1974
The lender took a charge over a property held by a company which subsequently became void because it was not registered within the required period at Companies House.
Held: A voidable charge is a valid charge unless and until set aside: . .
Cited – Cheltenham and Gloucester Plc v Appleyard and Another CA 15-Mar-2004
The owners had purchased their property with a loan from the BBBS. A charge was then given to BCCI, which charge said no further charge could be registered without BCCI ‘s consent. The C and G agreed to lend a sum to refinance the entire borrowings, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167634
The tenant sought an injunction against its neighbour and landlord to prevent it letting an adjoining property without a restriction similar to the one in its own lease. The claimants sought reassurance from the defendant tenants of the adjoining propery that they would act in accordance with the retriction, but no re-assurance was given.
Held: The claimants were prevented under the 1925 Act from registering a notice, and the defendants took the lease with notice of the restriction. However, the words ‘any demised premises’ in the 1995 Act referred to the premises demised by the particular lease in question, and not to any other premises demised by the landlord. Having granted a lease of part to the claimant covenanting not to allow any other part to be used as a gift shop, the landlord demised another part to the first defendant without incorporating a similar restriction. The landlords were not to be injuncted not to do something which they would not themselves be doing, but which would be done by another tenant. No notice was registerable.
Neuberger J: ‘In my judgment, while it is right to take into account the fact that the draftsman of the lease has departed from, or has omitted part of, a well-established form of words, that will not, at least on its own, normally be a sufficient reason for not giving the words he has used the natural meaning which they would otherwise bear. The fact that the draftsman has used a different form of words in relation to two provisions of a lease concerned with the same concept, in this case the use to which land is not to be put, is also something which should be taken into account when construing either of those provisions, but, again, I do not consider that it should normally justify departing from the natural meaning of either provision.
While it is appropriate for the court to contrast a provision which falls to be construed with a well-established form of words or with the way in which another provision in the lease is drafted, it is also right for the court to bear in mind the way that leases are drafted in practice. It is well known that draftsmen of leases will frequently use many expressions where one will do – see eg per Hoffmann J in Norwich Union Life Insurance Society v British Railways Board [1987] 2 EGLR 137 at 138 and in Tea Trade Properties Ltd v CIN Properties Ltd [1990] 1 EGLR 155 at 158. Furthermore, draftsmen may take the wording of different clauses from different precedents and different clauses may come from different hands.’
Neuberger J
Times 19-Jan-2000, [2000] 1 All ER 975, [2000] Ch 234
Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 3(5), Land Registration Act 1925 50(1)
England and Wales
Cited – Darstone Ltd v Cleveland Petroleum Co Ltd 1969
. .
Cited – Norwich Union Life Insurance v British Railways Board 1987
The court made reference to the ‘torrential style of drafting which has been traditional for many years’ among draftsmen of covenants in leases. ‘The use of ordinary language to convey meaning often involves subtle discriminations which for most . .
Cited – Tea Trade Properties Ltd v CIN Properties Ltd ChD 1990
It is not unusual for conveyances to say the same thing twice: ‘… I have never found the presumption against superfluous language particularly useful in the construction of leases. The draftsmen traditionally employ linguistic overkill and try to . .
Cited – Morrells of Oxford Ltd v Oxford United Football Club Ltd and Others CA 21-Jul-2000
A covenant on the sale of land for a public house provided that the vendor should not permit the building of licensed premises within half a mile.
Held: The covenant operated personally only. The covenants which might be implied by the section . .
Cited – Ranson v Ranson CA 13-Dec-2001
There had been protracted ancillary relief litigation between the parties resulting in a final order. Part of the order related to property, but the husband asserted that he was incapable of conveying the property since, because of title . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.84420
A section 38 agreement was an overriding interest, and created a public right which was binding on purchaser.
Times 02-Nov-1993
Land Registration Act 1925 70(1)(a)
England and Wales
Appeal from – Overseas Investment Services Ltd v Simcobuild Construction Ltd and Another CA 21-Apr-1995
Grant of s38 rights in a Highways agreement didn’t operate as grant of future public rights of way, nor create an overriding interest. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.84498
A search by an intending chargee had not revealed the existence of a caution on the register which protected a charging order. When the chargee attempted to register the charge, the cautioner was informed. It objected to the registration.
Held: The charging order took priority over the later charge, which, being unregistered, took effect only in equity and was therefore necessarily subordinate to the earlier minor interest.
Plowman J said: ‘the appropriate form of protection for a charging order is a caution.’
Plowman J rejected the plaintiff’s argument based on the absence of notice, referring to s.59(6): ‘It is true, as was stressed in the argument before me, that what the ss. says is that a purchaser is not affected by notice, express, implied or constructive, of matters capable of protection by a caution and not so protected and that (unlike the case of a notice of lease under s.48(1) of the Act) it does not say in terms that a purchaser is affected by a notice of matters capable of protection by caution, which are so protected, but that, in my judgment, is implicit in the scheme of the Act and in the subsection.’
Plowman J
[1970] Ch 101
Administration of Justice Act 1956 35
England and Wales
Cited – Clark and Another v Chief Land Registrar and Another ChD 2-Dec-1992
The defendant had made a mistake resulting in an equitable chargee not being given proper opportunity to object to the registration of a further charge with priority. The chargee sought compensation from the defendant registrar.
Held: The . .
Cited – Gold Harp Properties Ltd v Macleod and Others CA 29-Jul-2014
The company appealed against an order re-instating to the register leases which the company said it had forfeited for non-payment of rent. After the forfeiture, the landlord had granted new leases. It appealed saying that exceptional circumstances . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.536059
One of two joint proprietors of registered land forged the signature of the other and sold the property. The purchaser charged it to mortgagees who had no notice of the forgery.
Held: The original proprietor was entitled to have the Charges Register rectified so as to remove the charges in favour of the mortgagees.
John Cherryman QC
Unreported, 10 June 1994
England and Wales
Cited – Gold Harp Properties Ltd v Macleod and Others CA 29-Jul-2014
The company appealed against an order re-instating to the register leases which the company said it had forfeited for non-payment of rent. After the forfeiture, the landlord had granted new leases. It appealed saying that exceptional circumstances . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.536060
Application to alter mistake in filed plan.
Alun Steinfeld QC
[2012] EWHC 1734 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.464905
Land owners had entered into sale and rentback agreements. The buyers had taken out loans to complete the purchasers, but had then defaulted, having misrepresented the nature of the agreements to their lenders and the sellers. The lenders now brought possession actions.
Held: The court made the orders for possession following determination of three preliminary issues in nine test cases. In short, he considered that the effect of the Land Registration Act 2002 and case law, including in particular Abbey National Building Society v Cann [1991] 1 AC 56, meant that the mortgagees’ right to enforce their security has priority over the rights of the vendors to remain in occupation of their homes and there was no legal defence to the mortgagees’ claims for possession.
Behrens J
[2010] EWHC 2991 (Ch)
England and Wales
Cited – Abbey National Building Society v Cann HL 29-Mar-1990
Registered land was bought with an advance from the plaintiff. The transfer and charge were registered one month later, but in the meantime, the buyer’s parents moved in. When the buyer defaulted, his mother resisted possession proceedings, saying . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.430492