Category: Registered Land

Miah v Shafi: LRA 25 Aug 2017

(Beneficial Interests, Trusts and Restrictions : Express Agreement) Claim by A to a beneficial interest in a property bought as an investment at auction in A’s absence and paid for initially with R’s own borrowed funds. A and R had attended auctions together before and A’s evidence was that they had agreed to go into business together, buying and letting out houses. Two months after completion, A transferred to R’s account money borrowed from the bank and from relatives and friends amounting to exactly half the total of the purchase price and costs. The property was let out. There was a chain of texts from A complaining that he had not received his share of the rent, which produced some payments from R. In the proceedings R claimed that A had lent the money to R without R having asked for the money. Held that there was an express agreement that the property would be held for A and R in equal shares. I accepted A’s evidence that R had told him that it was only a technicality that legal title was in his name. A’s claim succeeded. There had been video evidence in the form of an exert from the tv programme ‘Under the Hammer’, showing A and R at an auction and raising their arms together to bid for a property.

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 677 (PC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601384

Arrow Global Guernsey Ltd v Kazibwe and Another: LRA 22 Sep 2017

(Charges and Charging Orders : Charging Orders) Co-owner agreed at the hearing that a judgment creditor with a charging order final was entitled to enter a restriction in the register. An oral agreement between the co-owners in 2007 whereby one transferred her interest to the other was not documented in any way. Post that agreement both co-owners joined in the re-jig of the mortgage, even though all repayments were made by one of them.

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 714 (PC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601386

O’Regan v Cruikshank: LRA 30 Aug 2017

(Beneficial Interests, Trusts and Restrictions : Express Agreement) This was a beneficial interest case where the parties had made an agreement about their interests at the time of purchase but had subsequently made an express agreement which changed their interests. As a result of the finding as to the beneficial interests the registrar was directed to give effect to the application for a restriction. A good example of a beneficial interest dispute where the finding as to the quantum of the interest was an integral part of the decision that there was an interest. The latter could not have been made without the former.

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 736 (PC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601385

Akhtar v Slough Borough Council: LRA 27 Oct 2017

Applicant alleged that her signature on the Transfer of the property had been forged and that the signature (whosever it was) had not been properly witnessed. She sought rectification of the register and her reinstatement as proprietor. There was no objection from the registered proprietor but the Respondent had a restriction in the register in respect of a restraint order under Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The Tribunal found there was insufficient evidence of a forgery. The defective attestation was proven but, on analysis, did not mean there had been a mistake in the register. The Respondent, as the beneficiary of a restraint order, was entitled to be heard on the question of rectification.

Citations:

[2017] EWLandRA 2016 – 0207, [2017] UKFTT 803 (PC)

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601394

Iqbal and Another v Buckinghamshire County Council: LRA 17 Aug 2017

(Practice and Procedure : Scope of Jurisdiction) Application for first registration of a section of embankment to the rear of the Applicants’ home based on adverse possession. Respondent, the local highway authority, argued that the embankment formed part of a defined public footpath and was accordingly part of a highway. The parties accepted that if the disputed land was part of a highway the claim based on adverse possession should fail. The current definitive map of the defined public footpath did not specify the width of the pathway. The embankment did not form part of the footpath as currently used but the local authority contended that the disputed land was part of an ancient drovers’ way. The local authority did not call any expert evidence and the very limited factual evidence was tendered. The evidence presented was not sufficient to support the local authority’s contention and the Applicants’ evidence established adverse possession of the embankment. The application succeeded. The Decision includes a discussion of the extent of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to consider matters not raised in objections made to the Land Registry prior to the reference. Contrary to the Applicants’ submission, it was held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine on the evidence whether the Applicants had adversely possessed the disputed land even though the local authority had not challenged the claim to adverse possession until after the reference. The question of whether the Applicants had adversely possessed the land was part of the ‘matter’ referred to the Tribunal, adopting the approach set out in paragraph 7.4 of A Practical Guide to Land Registration Proceedings.

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 679 (PC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601382

Perinpanathan v Popat, Official Receiver As Trustee In Bankruptcy of: LRA 27 Sep 2017

Adverse possession – 2nd Respondent bought the land in 1989 and was registered as proprietor but never took possession. It remained part of the back garden of the house whose owner sold it to 2nd Respondent. Applicant was the seller’s successor in title; she took over the earlier adverse possession. She was entitled to be registered as proprietor pursuant to the transitional provisions; she applied instead under the transitional provisions but was allowed to proceed under Schedule 6 paragraph 5(3). There was no valid objection; but the Respondent’s objection was put in just out of time (at 12:01 on the 65th business day), so the decision sets out in detail why the application would have been successful in any event under paragraph 5(3).

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 712 (PC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601389

Jani v Jani: LRA 5 Sep 2017

(Beneficial Interests, Trusts and Restrictions : Express Agreement) Applicant sought a restriction in Form A to record her beneficial interest in the flat in which she lived, which was part of the registered title, the rest of the title being the ground-floor commercial premises. The Respondent agreed that she could have a restriction (because it was agreed that she had a life interest in the flat) but sought the amendment of the standard form so as to refer only to the flat itself, so as not to hamper his ability to grant leases of the rest of the property. Held that the amendment of the restriction would not meet the criteria set out in s 43(3) of the LRA 2002 (in particular, it would impose an unreasonable burden on the registrar) and so directed the registrar to give effect to the Applican’s application.

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 758 (PC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601387

Khela v Batshoof Investment Lte and Another: LRA 7 Aug 2017

(Charges and Charging Orders : Bankruptcy and Insolvency) Applicant and 2nd Respondent were the registered proprietors of the property; 1st Respondent had a registered charge dated 1993. Nothing had been paid and no interest had accrued under the charge since 1993. A applied to have the charge removed. R1 objected on the basis that it had been acknowledged, by letter from R2’s trustee in bankruptcy as agent for R2. Held that the trustee in bankruptcy was not R2’s agent and also that in any event one mortgagor could not make on behalf of both proprietors an acknowledgement sufficient for section 29 of the Limitation Act 1980. The registrar was directed to respond to the application as if the objection had not been made.

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 676 (PC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601383

Williams v Besai: LRA 15 Sep 2017

(Fraud, Forgery, Duress and Undue Influence : Effect On Registered Title) Fraud. Applicant sought registration of a transfer; Respondent (the transferor) said that he did not sign either the contract or the TR1. The judge found that although he did not sign the TR1 he did sign the contract. Therefore although the registrar was ordered to cancel the application for registration of the transfer, the judge directed the entry of a notice to protect the contract.

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 713 (PC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601390

Hodgson v Marks: CA 12 Mar 1971

The plaintiff had transferred her house to her lodger, expressing it to be for her love and affection for him. The judge at first instance had held that the true intention of the plaintiff had been that she would continue to live there as before and that she owned the equity. The lodger had sold the title to the defendant who bought it with the assistance of a mortgage. He knew of her presence in the house, but not of the arrangement. The court was now asked as to the resulting position within the 1925 legislation.
Held: A registered proprietor, not being a purchaser for value and without notice of an occupier’s interests, will hold the legal estate on Trust for the occupier with no right to assign the equity.

Judges:

Russell, Buckley, Cairns LJJ

Citations:

[1971] EWCA Civ 8, [1971] Ch 892, (1971) 22 P and CR 586, [1971] 2 WLR 1263, [1971] 2 All ER 684

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 70(1)(g), Law of Property Act 1925 53

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Hodgson v Marks ChD 1970
The plaintiff, an elderly widow, transferred her house into the name of her lodger, but remained in occupation of the house, on exactly the same basis as before, until the lodger sold the house and the purchaser had mortgaged it to a building . .
Cited – Hunt v Luck CA 1902
Dr Hunt owned properties for which the rents were collected by his agent. The land were conveyed to a Mr Gilbert, who then mortgaged them. After the doctor’s death, his personal representatives challenged the validity of the conveyance. When the . .
Cited – Barnhart v Greenshields PC 5-Dec-1853
Pemberton Leigh said: ‘With respect to the effect of possession merely, we take the law to be, that if there be a tenant in possession of land, a purchaser is bound by all the equities which the tenant could enforce against the vendor, and that the . .

Cited by:

Cited – United Bank of Kuwait Plc v Sahib and Others CA 2-Feb-1996
The bank appealed against a decision that the simple deposit of deeds with a bank did not take effect as an equitable charge.
Held: Depositing deeds with a bank is not sufficient to create a charge over them. The old law as to the creation of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land, Trusts

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.262759

Derbyshire County Council v Fallon and Another: ChD 11 Jun 2007

The council appealed against a finding of the Deputy Adjudicator of the Land Registry refusing to alter the filed plan of the defendant’s title. Christopher Nugee QC approved the statement of the deputy adjudicator Mr Michael Mark described a change on the filed plan as producing ‘another general boundary in a more accurate position than the current general boundary’.

Judges:

Christopher Nugee QC

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1326 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Paton and Another v Todd ChD 11-May-2012
The claimants sought leave to appeal against rejection of their request made to the Deputy Adjudicator for the rectification of the title to land they claimed title to land which was registered to the respondent neighbour.
Held: The claimant’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.254484

Spectrum Investment Co Ltd v Holmes: ChD 1981

The plaintiff company acquired the registered freehold title of a house in 1957. The house was already demised on a long lease. The leaseholder had sublet to the defendant, who, by continuous non-payment of rent, had, by 1963, acquired a prescriptive title against her. In 1968 the defendant sought registration as proprietor of the leasehold interest and, in the absence of any response from the leaseholder’s solicitors to the notice that they received, the Land Registry closed the registration of the latter’s title, and opened a new registration of the defendant’s title, describing the property as leasehold land held on the terms of the 1902 lease. Seven years later, in 1975, the leaseholder sought to defeat the defendant’s title by executing a deed of surrender to the freeholder (a company controlled by her own family).
Held: Browne-Wilkinson J said that the device, as it was admitted to be, failed, saying: ‘To my mind the words of section 75(1) are clear and unequivocal: the squatter claims to have acquired a title to ‘a registered estate in the land’ (ie the leasehold interest) and applies to be registered as a proprietor ‘thereof’ (my emphasis). Therefore under section 75(2), references to the squatter having acquired title to a registered estate must include the rights which under the Limitation Act 1939 the squatter acquires in relation to leasehold interests. Section 75(2) then refers to the squatter applying to be registered as proprietor ‘thereof’. This word can, in my judgment, only refer back to the registered estate in the land against which the squatter has acquired title under the Act of 1939, ie the leasehold interest. The clear words of the Act therefore seem to require that, once the 12 years have run, the squatter is entitled to be registered as proprietor of the lease itself, and is bound to be so registered if he applies for registration. It follows that in my judgment the defendant (as the squatter) is correctly registered as proprietor of the lease itself in accordance with the clear requirements of section 75. If that is right, . . [the leaseholder] cannot be entitled to rectification of the register as against the defendant, and she can therefore never get into a position in which she is competent to surrender the lease to the plaintiff.’

Judges:

Browne-Wilkinson J

Citations:

[1981] 1 All ER 6, (1980) 41 P and CR 133, [1981] 1 WLR 221

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 75

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land, Limitation

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.252433

The Official Custodian of Charities, Reverend Armitt, Hall, Hammett As The Current Vicar and Churchwardens of The Parish of Bisley and West End v Faithful: LRA 17 Nov 2016

Alteration and rectification of the register – adverse possession – effect of issuing county court possession proceedings

Citations:

[2016] EWLandRA 2015 – 0701

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

School Sites Act 1841, Limitation Act 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.578222