LRA Adverse Possession : Acknowledgment of Title – Order

[2009] EWLandRA 2008 – 1669
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517406

Boundary Dispute : Ad Medium Filum – Private road – formerly part of an estate which had been split up – claim by registered proprietor of land on both sides of part of the road to ownership of that part – construction of earlier conveyances – ad medium filum presumption – adverse possession – Was that part of the road subject to a right of way?

[2006] EWLandRA 2005 – 1309
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517390

LRA Alteration and Rectification of The Register : Discretion of The Registrar and of The Adjudicator – Rectification of the register – Fraud – ‘Correcting a mistake’ – second charge – Schedule 4 Paragraph 5(1)(a) of the Land Registration Act 2002

[2008] EWLandRA 2006 – 0174
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Ajibade v Bank of Scotland Plc (Formerly Halifax Plc), Endeavour Personal Finance Limited (Alteration and Rectification of The Register) LRA 8-Apr-2008
LRA Rectification of the register – Fraud – ‘Correcting a mistake’ – second charge – Schedule 4 Paragraph 5(1)(a) of the Land Registration Act 2002
Ms Ajibade was the registered proprietor of a leasehold . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517395

LRA Deeds : Execution – ALTERATION OF THE REGISTER – FORGERY – validity of TR1 transfer deed challenged on 3 grounds – firstly, because deed not properly attested – secondly, because Applicant’s signature allegedly forged on TR1 – thirdly, on basis of misrepresentation making transaction voidable – held that TR1 void because Applicant’s signature had been forged and deed would have been invalidated in any event by absence of proper attestation, but that improper attestation not necessarily enough to defeat transaction – Chief Land Registrar ordered to give effect to the application – mortgagee’s application for recital relating to alleged subrogation refused.
Cases referred to:-
Shah v Shah [2002] QB 35
Biggar v London Borough of Havering [2001] EWCA Civ 411

[2007] EWLandRA 2005 – 1551
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517391

LRA Deeds : Subsequent Conduct/Extrinsic Evidence – Application to alter the register by removing proprietor and charge – applications to remove proprietor given effect to – issue as to validity of attestation of transfer – S 1(3) of the Law of Property Act – Shah v Shah [2002] QB 30 – undue influence – Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2) [1998] 4 All ER 705. Position of the Bank considered and remitted for further argument – Barclays Bank v Guy [2008] 2 EGLR 74

[2009] EWLandRA 2009 – 0052
Bailii

Registered Land

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517408

LRA Party raising fresh issues by way of subsequent objection; refusal of Land Registry to give effect to consent order; second referral by HM Land Registry to the Adjudicator to HM Land Registry; estoppel by record – cause of action estoppel – issue estoppel; abuse of process; Rule in Henderson v Henderson; Adjudicator to HM Land Registry (Practice and Procedure) Rules 2003 Rules 16(3), 42.

[2013] EWLandRA 2011 – 1003
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Pearson v Foster (Nee Worden) (Practice and Procedure : Decisions and Orders) LRA 17-May-2013
LRA Registration of profit a prendre in gross of fishing rights; order made by the Adjudicator giving effect to a consent order made by the parties; Adjudicator to HM Land Registry (Practice and Procedure) Rules . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.516924

LRA The Applicant, now in administration, was in business in 2007 to 2008 buying residential properties from owners in occupation for full market value, payable as to 70 per cent on completion and as to the 30 per cent balance, subject to conditions, at the expiry of ten years. At the same time it entered into assured shorthold tenancies of 10 years with the vendors at a rack rent with the vendors having the right to a further tenancy at the end of the 10 years. The vendors sought to protect their rights in respect of the 30 per cent balance by registering a notice against the freehold title at the Land Registry. The Administrators of the Applicant sought to have the notices cancelled.
Held: 1 Where a vendor is to be paid part of the purchase price on completion and the balance at a later date no unpaid vendor’s lien arises in the absence of specific provision for one: Winter v Lord Anson, (1823) 1 Sim and St. 434; Clarke v Royle, (1830) 3 Sim.499; Buckland v Pocknell, (1843) 13 Sim.406; Earl of Jersey v Briton Floating Dock Co., (1869) LR 7 Eq 409; Re Albert Life Insurance Co., (1870) LR Eq 164; Re Brentwood Brick and Coal Co., (1876) LR 4 Ch D 562; Capital Finance v Stokes, [1969] 1 Ch 262.
2 Even where an unpaid vendor’s lien would otherwise arise by implication, it can be excluded by express provision in the sale contract: Qayoumi v Oakhouse Property Holdings plc, [2003] 1 BCLC 352.
3 The provisions in the contracts in the present test cases which provide that there is to be no unpaid vendor’s liens do not fall foul of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 199: UK Housing Alliance v Francis, [2010] EWCA Civ 117; Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank plc, [2001] 1 AC 481; Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National plc, [2010] 1 AC 696.
4 No facts have been established in any of the three test cases dealt with in this decision which could give rise to any constructive trust or estoppel which could have arisen either prior to or at the time that the Applicant went into administration or as a result of the administration.
5 In any event, it is not possible to have a remedial constructive trust or equity by way of estoppel which arises in the course of the administration of a company: Re Polly Peck Internations plc (in administration) (No.2), [1998] 3 All ER 812.
6 There is no right of set off of rent or other payments due to the Applicant under tenancy agreements granted to the vendors at the time of the sales against the outstanding balance of the purchase price except insofar as such right may arise in the course of the administration or liquidation of the Applicant. In particular there is no right of set off against a third party to whom the property has been sold on by the Applicant: Edlington Properties Limited v Fenner and Co. Limited, [2006] 3 All ER 1200.
7 The contingent right to receive the balance of the purchase price at the end of 10 years does not affect a registered estate or charge within the meaning of section 32 of the Land Registration Act 2002.
8 Accordingly no notice in respect of that right can be registered at the Land Registry to protect the right and the notices so registered must be vacated.

[2013] EWLandRA 2011 – 0604
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.516922

LRA Application for registration of transfer from the names of the parties into the sole name of the Respondent found to be based on a document concocted to deceive creditors of the Respondent and is to be cancelled. Direction given for notice of a charging order obtained by one of those creditors to be entered on the register, despite the application of that creditor having previously been cancelled as a result of a decision of the Adjudicator based on that fraudulent document, the Adjudicator then being in ignorance of the fraud

[2013] EWLandRA 2011 – 0136
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.516921

Land Registration – beneficial interests

[2018] UKUT 362 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.632167

Land Registration – Undue Influence – Relationship of Trust and Confidence – Mistake

[2018] UKUT 325 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.632175

roberts_keeganLRA201410

LRA Rentcharges : Nature and Extent : Rectification or Setting Aside of Documents : Scope of Jurisdiction – A lease created by the owner of a rentcharge pursuant to section 121 of the Law of Property Act 1925 is not registrable as a lease at HM Land Registry but is a mortgage which can only be protected on the register by a notice at least where the rentcharge is to end in 2037 under the Rentcharges Act 1977.
Costs recoverable under the rentcharge and lease do not include costs unreasonably incurred.

Judge Mark
[2014] EWLandRA 2012 – 1006
Bailii
Rentcharges Act 1977, Law of Property Act 1925 121

Registered Land

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.541517

An appeal from a decision made in the Land Registration Division of the First-tier Tribunal on the Appellants’ application for a determined boundary under section 60 of the Land Registration Act 2002.
Held: If the FTT regards the boundary sought as partly correct, it may direct the registrar to give effect to it to that extent, but to reject it insofar as it is incorrect; and it may give a direction about the entry to be made with regard to that part of the boundary where the applicant’s plan was found wanting.

[2016] UKUT 168 (TCC)
Bailii
Land Registration Act 2002 60
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Witt v Woodhead UTLC 18-Nov-2020
No determined Boundary – Court Findings Enough
Land Registration – Boundary Disputes – Construction of Conveyance – Straight Line Boundary – usefulness of computer-generated lines – party wall – fence posts
Held: ‘It should be borne in mind that a carefully-drawn conveyance plan showing a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.562434

Allegation that transfer not properly executed.

[2016] EWLandRA 2015 – 0365
Bailii
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.562123

LRA EASEMENT – right of way – prescription – Wimbledon and Putney Commons Act 1871 ss. 8 and 35 – Prescription Act 1832, ss. 2 and 3 – true construction of the word ‘dispose’ – definition of ‘the commons’ – whether the Respondents are capable grantors – doctrine of Lost Modern Grant.

[2006] EWLandRA 2005 – 0236
Bailii
Prescription Act 1832 8 35
Cited by:
See Also – Housden and Another v The Conservators of Wimbledon and Putney Commons CA 18-Mar-2008
The claimants sought to register a right of way over the common by virtue of use over forty years. The defendants denied that they were able to grant an easement inder the 1871 Act, and that therefore no claim could be laid under prescription.
Registered Land

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.429547

No determined Boundary – Court Findings Enough

Land Registration – Boundary Disputes – Construction of Conveyance – Straight Line Boundary – usefulness of computer-generated lines – party wall – fence posts
Held: ‘It should be borne in mind that a carefully-drawn conveyance plan showing a straight boundary may not depict a perfectly straight line on the ground; a red line on a plan may be a metre wide on the ground because the conveyancers of the past did not have today’s computerised mapping tools; nor did the builders of the 1960s, with pegs and tape, have the use of today’s measuring instruments.’

Judge Elizabeth Cooke
[2020] UKUT 319 (LC)
Bailii
Land Registration Act 2002 60
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Pennock and Another v Hodgson CA 27-Jul-2010
In a boundary dispute, the judge had found a boundary, locating it by reference to physical features not mentioned in the unambigous conveyance.
Held: The judge had reiterated but not relied upon the statement as to the subjective views of the . .
Cited – Bean and Another v Katz and Another UTTC 6-Apr-2016
An appeal from a decision made in the Land Registration Division of the First-tier Tribunal on the Appellants’ application for a determined boundary under section 60 of the Land Registration Act 2002.
Held: If the FTT regards the boundary . .
Cited – Hawkes v Howe CA 29-Jul-2002
The parties were neighbours. One asserted that the other had trespassed in a building by 2.5 inches. The defendant appealed an award of damages. A garage had been built over the boundary by a previous occupier but by agreement. The new owner . .
Cited – Lanfear v Chandler CA 20-Nov-2013
Appeal in boundary dispute case.
Held: There is no presumption that T-marks indicate the ownership of the boundary feature . . .
Cited – Lowe and Another v William Davis Ltd UTTC 26-Jun-2018
FTT’s jurisdiction to locate boundary
Land Registration – Location of Boundary- Land registration – Land Registration Act 2002, section 60 – Land Registration Rules 2003, rules 118 – 120 – application to First-tier Tribunal for determination of exact line of boundary – First-tier . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.656354

LRA Estoppel – Exercise of options – whether defect waived – ‘The Kanchenjunga’ [1990] Lloyds Law Reports 391 – Peyman v Lanjani [1985] 1 Ch 457, HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd v AXA Corporate Solutions [2002] EWCA Civ 153, Forrest and Sons Ltd v CGU Insurance Plc [2006] Lloyds Rep 113, Persimmon Homes v Hall Aggregates [2009] EWCA, Thorner v Major [2009] 3 All ER 945.

[2011] EWLandRA 2011 – 0238, 2011/0238
Bailii
Land Registration Act 2002
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Motor Oil Hellas (Corinth) Refineries SA v Shipping Corporation of India (The Kanchenjunga) HL 1990
A ship was caught in harbour when an air raid broke out. The master took the ship to sea where it suffered damage.
Held: The shipowners were protected by a war risks clause in the charterparty agreement. As to waiver by election, Lord Goff of . .
Cited – HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd v AXA Corporate Solutions CA 31-Jul-2002
The reinsured (HIH) claimed against its 80% quota share reinsurers (which include Axa) in respect of pecuniary loss indemnity insurance written by HIH to cover loss by the financiers of two slates of films. HIH had paid their insured over $31 . .
Cited – Forrest and Sons Ltd v CGU Insurance Plc 2006
The insurer had noted that an oven on the insured’s premises was a danger. The insured said that the over had been disconnected and was no longer in use. This was not in fact the case. A year later the insurer surveyed the premises. It noted the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.465875

LRA The council challenged the grant of a possessory title to the respondent. He, acting for English Nature had claimed ownership of a section of foreshore of special scientific interest. The respondent argued that the claimant had not asserted any contrary interst and should not be heard. The council appealed against acceptance of that argument saying that this was a public law matter and had standing accordingly.
Held: The matter was one of private law, and the Council had no standing to object. ‘The changes made by the Land Registration Act 2002 have been a move away from what was called registration of title to what is now sometimes called title by registration.’
‘Mr Wells’ original application to have himself registered as proprietor of a parcel of land raises questions of private law only. The registration of a person as proprietor of land is concerned with conferring upon him private law rights. The fact that those private law rights are recorded in a register which is open to the public does not appear to me to alter the fundamental nature of those rights.’
The schemes of land registration in England and Scotland are sufficiently similar for the court to apply the Wilson case in this. The effect of the closure of the title would be to remove a freehold estate which is currently vested in the registrant by virtue of the 2002 Act. That is undoubtedly a question of private rights.’

Lewison J
[2008] EWLandRA 2006 – 0084
Bailii
Land Registration Act 2002 11(7) 73
England and Wales
Citing:
Persuasive – Wilson and Others v Keeper of the Registers of Scotland SCS 1999
(Inner House) An application was made objecting to the registration of a title to a foreshore. The title applicant objected that this was a matter of private law, and that they had no standing to object.
Held: To apply for the alteration of . .

Cited by:
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.429588

FTT’s jurisdiction to locate boundary

Land Registration – Location of Boundary- Land registration – Land Registration Act 2002, section 60 – Land Registration Rules 2003, rules 118 – 120 – application to First-tier Tribunal for determination of exact line of boundary – First-tier Tribunal holding that application plan inaccurate and directing Chief Land Registrar to cancel application – First-tier Tribunal making findings as to location of the boundary – appeal to Upper Tribunal – jurisdiction of First-tier Tribunal to make findings on the location of the boundary in such a case – whether First-tier Tribunal’s findings as to location of boundary correct – appeal as to costs order made by First-tier Tribunal
The fTT may direct the registrar to reject the application in whole or in part if it finds that the boundary sought is not the correct boundary, or to give effect to the application (in whole or in part) without regard to the objection; the FTT’s direction may include: ‘a condition that a specified entry be made on the register of any title affected’

[2018] UKUT 206 (TCC), [2018] WLR(D) 425, [2018] 2 P and CR 13, [2018] 4 WLR 113
Bailii, WLRD
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 40(3)(a)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Witt v Woodhead UTLC 18-Nov-2020
No determined Boundary – Court Findings Enough
Land Registration – Boundary Disputes – Construction of Conveyance – Straight Line Boundary – usefulness of computer-generated lines – party wall – fence posts
Held: ‘It should be borne in mind that a carefully-drawn conveyance plan showing a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.628071

Land Registration – Alteration and Rectification – whether purchaser entitled to rely on transfer executed by director during receivership – whether receivers discharged before execution of transfer – section 26, Land Registration Act 2002 – appeal dismissed

[2020] UKUT 293 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.655167

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 corrective power may be exercised in the case of the mistaken registration under the 2002 Act of 362 acres of moorland.

Mummery, Jackson, McCombe LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 1228, [2013] EWLandRA 2007 – 1124
Bailii, Bailii
Land Registration Act 2002
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Walker and Others v Burton and Another ChD 19-Apr-2013
The parties had bitterly disputed the Lordship of the Manor of Ireby. The defendants had purchased the former Hall, and had been registered as proprietors of the Lordship. The claimants having succeeded before the Land Registry adjudicator, they now . .
Cited – Wilson and Others v Keeper of the Registers of Scotland SCS 1999
(Inner House) An application was made objecting to the registration of a title to a foreshore. The title applicant objected that this was a matter of private law, and that they had no standing to object.
Held: To apply for the alteration of . .
Cited – Hampshire County Council v Milburn HL 1991
The 1965 Act ‘was passed to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission so far as registration was concerned. The Act of 1965 did not confer any general public right of access over common land and did not set up the machinery for the . .
Cited – Crown Estate Commissioners v Roberts and Another ChD 13-Jun-2008
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 . .
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 – Pilling Parish Council v Stephen Wells (Practice and Procedure) LRA 6-Mar-2008
LRA The council challenged the grant of a possessory title to the respondent. He, acting for English Nature had claimed ownership of a section of foreshore of special scientific interest. The respondent argued . .
Cited – Wells v Pilling Parish Council ChD 6-Mar-2008
The Council had sought rectification of the land registers granting possessory title to Mr Wells to land at the foreshore at Morecambe Bay, which he held on behalf of English Nature it being designated as a site of Special Scientific Interest. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.516452

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 existed to justify the non-rectification, and that the judge had erred in giving the revived leases priority.
Held: The appeal failed. The Court (and the Registrar) had the power to remove from the Register a derivative interest created by a person who at the material time was, albeit as the result of a mistake, the registered proprietor, and in that sense – without prejudice to whether this is a relevant sense – to make a ‘retrospective’ order.
Underhill LJ said: ‘What paragraph 8 permits (for the future) is ‘changing the priority’ of an interest. What an interest having priority means is that the owner can exercise the rights which he enjoys by virtue of that interest to the exclusion of any inconsistent rights of the owner of the competing interest. The concept of priority thus bites at the moment that those rights are sought to be enjoyed. Once that is appreciated the effect of the words ‘for the future’ seems to me straightforward. They mean that the beneficiary of the change in priority – that is, the person whose interest has been restored to the Register – can exercise his rights as owner of that interest, to the exclusion of the rights of the owner of the competing interest, as from the moment that the order is made, but that he cannot be treated as having been entitled to do so up to that point.’

Richards, Sullivan, Underhill LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 1084, [2014] WLR(D) 345
Bailii, WLRD
Land Registration Act 2002 28 29
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Freer v Unwins Ltd ChD 1976
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 . .
Cited – Argyle Building Society v Hammond CA 1984
The registered freehold proprietor (S) of a property lived abroad, his mother having power of attorney. His sister and her husband, Mr and Mrs Hammond, had the register altered to show themselves as the freehold proprietors. The primary case was . .
Cited – Egan v Central Manchester and Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Trust CA 15-Dec-2008
The claimant, a nurse employed by the defendant, appealed against the refusal of her claim for personal injury suffered operating a hoist whose wheels jammed when they hit a plinth in the floor. No risk assessment was in place.
Held: The judge . .
Cited – Norwich and Peterborough Building Society v Steed CA 5-Mar-1992
The land-owner had given his mother power of attorney over his home. Her signature was forged on a transfer, and the transferee executed a charge in favour of the appellant. Transfer and charge were registered. A first line of cases restored the . .
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 – Clark and Another v Chief Land Registrar and Another; Chancery Plc v Ketteringham CA 5-May-1994
A caution gives a right to be notified of an application, but does not give any priority on registration. . .
Cited – Parkash v Irani Finance Ltd ChD 1970
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.
Cited – Hayes v Nwajiaku ChD 10-Jun-1994
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 . .
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 – 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 – 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Barclays Bank Plc v Guy CA 9-Apr-2008
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 . .
Cited – 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 – Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Olympia Homes Limited, Hughes etc ChD 17-Jun-2005
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 . .
Mentioned – Taylor v Lawrence CA 4-Feb-2002
A party sought to re-open a judgment on the Court of Appeal after it had been perfected. A case had been tried before a judge. One party had asked for a different judge to be appointed, after the judge disclosed that he had been a client of the firm . .
Cited – Ajibade v Bank of Scotland Plc (Formerly Halifax Plc), Endeavour Personal Finance Limited (Alteration and Rectification of The Register) LRA 8-Apr-2008
LRA Rectification of the register – Fraud – ‘Correcting a mistake’ – second charge – Schedule 4 Paragraph 5(1)(a) of the Land Registration Act 2002
Ms Ajibade was the registered proprietor of a leasehold . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.535398

The claimant had erected a building on land at the rear of his own property in 1986. He sought to register his title. He complained now that he had been granted only possessory and not absolute title. The land had been unregistered, but had belonged to Railtrack, who would not give consent.
Held: The claim failed. ‘The registrar, it seems to me, is plainly entitled to take a cautious — even an ultra cautious — view of the position so as to avoid putting public funds at risk.’ and ‘conveyancing throws up many surprises. Even on this small piece of land, the possibility of a surprise which might give rise to a claim on the public purse cannot wholly be excluded.’

Mitting J
[2010] EWHC 3315 (Admin)
Bailii
and Registration Act 2002 3 9 62
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.427946

B appealed against an order for rectification against him of the land register returning ownership to M. B had obtained registration with possessory title, claiming to have kept horses on the field for many years in adverse possession of it. M had failed to reply to the original application. B said that the registration had been in accordance with procedure and was not a mistake as such, and therefore not subject to rectification.
Held: The proposed interpretation would be contrary to the policy behind the 2002 Act, and an invitation to fraud. The former registered proprietor would neither be able to claim compensation. The adjudicator had not applied correctly the appropriate burden of proof, which lay on the person applying for rectification.
In the circumstances it would be unjust to make an order when adverse possession had not been adequately established.

Henderson J
[2010] EWHC 573 (Ch), [2010] NPC 38, [2010] 1 WLR 1965
Bailii
Land Registration Rules 2003 189, Land Registration Act 2002 Sch 6
England and Wales
Citing:
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 – Stephens and Another v Cannon and Another CA 14-Mar-2005
The claimants had purchased land from the defendants. The contract was conditional on a development which did not take place. The master had been presented with very different valuations of the property.
Held: The master was not entitled to . .
Cited – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v The United Kingdom ECHR 30-Aug-2007
UK Advers Possession Law – Not Compliant
The claimant had said that the UK law which allowed it to lose land by virtue of twelve year’s occupation by a squatter, interfered with its right to ownership of property.
Held: The UK law on adverse possession did comply with the Convention. . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Baxter v Mannion CA 22-Feb-2011
The court was asked ‘can a man who has got his name registered as the proprietor of a parcel of registered land by wrongly claiming that he had been in adverse possession for ten years hang on to that title if the original proprietor, within 65 days . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.403358

The claimant company’s administrators sought an order to have vacated unilateral notices entered against land titles registered to the claimant. The court now gave its reasons for making the order as requested by way of summary relief. The notices had been based upon an assertion that the charges under which the respondent assrted title had been altered after execution, and invalidated.
Held: The notices were vacated. The amendments did not prejudice the claimant and did not therefore render the charges void, and ‘it is abundantly clear that there is simply no scope for Mr Deville to contend that it was agreed between him and Lloyds that he should be subrogated to Lloyds’ rights under the Lloyds PRL Debenture and Lloyds Charge. There is equally no scope for him to maintain, in the teeth of the documentation between PRL and BoS and the steps taken to give effect to what was agreed, not least the steps taken to release those two securities, to all of which he was fully privy, that in some way he can assert either that those two securities remained in full force and effect or that he enjoys rights of security over the assets of PRL on the terms of one or other of those two securities, let alone that he enjoys such rights in priority to BoS.’

Sir William Blackburne
[2013] EWHC 2330 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Pigot’s Case 1614
A written contact may be avoided if somebody makes a material alteration to it after it has been signed and without his consent. . .
Cited – Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich A G v Crossseas Shipping Ltd and Others CA 2000
The claimant creditor bank made changes to the guarantee executed by the guarantee without its approval and after it had been signed and duly executed, by inserting the details of a service agent.
Held: The insertion did not work to alter the . .
Cited – Wragg and Another v Partco Group Ltd UGC Ltd CA 1-May-2002
A claim was made against directors of a company involved in a takeover, for failure to make proper disclosure. The case involved also other issues. The defendants appealed against a refusal to strike out the claim.
Held: The rules made . .
Cited – Celador Productions Ltd v Melville ChD 21-Oct-2004
The applicants each alleged breach of copyright and misuse of confidential information in the format of the television program ‘Who wants to be a Millionaire’. The defendant appealed a refusal to strike out the claim. It was not contended that no . .
Cited – Cotton (T/A Allmat Enterprises) v Rickard Metals Inc QBD 21-Apr-2008
Eady J set out principles applying on applications for summary judgment: ‘the court needs to be satisfied that the relevant party’s case (in this instance that of Mr Cotton) is bound to fail on the material at present available and, secondly, that . .
See Also – Daniels and others v Deville and others ChD 25-Jul-2008
The parties had entered into a joint venture which proved unsuccessful. The court was now asked to interpret a deed of dissolution if the agreement.
Held: Lindsay J determined the nature of the Joint Venture, the interests of the corporate . .
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 . .
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, . .
Cited – Anfield (UK) Ltd v Bank of Scotland Plc and Others ChD 24-Sep-2010
The court was asked as to the remedy of subrogation as it affects the priority of charges. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.514972

The court was asked whether a Land Registry Adjudicator could refuse to accept a party’s withdrawal from the adjudication. The parties had disputed a right of way. The claimant wanted to add a claim under the 1925 Act, but after this was refused, he had sought to withdraw leaving open a right to pursue a similar claim at Court. The Adjudicator refused.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The Adjudicator’s task was to decide the matter before him, and the Adjudicator’s jurisdiction to determine the matter referred to him continued notwithstanding the purported withdrawal of the claimants.
The 2003 Rules were silent in the issue. The court distinguished between a party wanting simply to withdraw the adjudication, and one accepting that cancellation of his notice would follow.
Floyd J said: ‘Referral to the Adjudicator involves a recognition that the objection is not obviously groundless, and that the parties have not achieved agreement as to the correct state of the Register. The Adjudicator is given the task of determining, by examination of evidence, those applications where there is a dispute as to the underlying rights . . the reference to the Adjudicator is better viewed as a proceeding whose purpose it is to determine the underlying right, quite unlike the administrative procedure in the Land Registry . . Proceedings before the Adjudicator are triggered precisely because it is necessary to determine those rights in order to dispose of the objection. The procedure laid down by the Rules is plainly one directed at determining those underlying rights . . there is no reason why administrative steps, such as unilateral withdrawal of an objection, which would be possible before the Registrar, should be available as of right in proceedings before the Adjudicator, which are of a different character.’

Floyd J
[2010] EWHC 1627 (Ch), [2010] 39 EG 110, [2010] NPC 76, [2010] 28 EG 84 (CS)
Bailii
Law of Property Act 1925 62, Land Registration Act 2002 73, Land Registration Rules 2003
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – The Chief Land Registrar v Silkstone and Others CA 14-Jul-2011
The Chief Land Registrar appealed against the dismissal of his appeal against the adjudicator’s decision on the cancellation of a unilateral notice. On the day of the adjudication, the Silkstones had purported to withdraw their case, wanting to take . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.420224

The claimant appealed against cancellation of his application for a restriction against the defendant’s registered title. The adjudicator had found that the claimant’s assertion of an interest in the land was a fiction.
Held: The appeal failed. The adjudicator’s task was not limited as suggested. Briggs J said: ‘what has to be referred to the Adjudicator under section 73(7), where an objection which is not obviously groundless cannot be disposed of by agreement, is not merely the question whether the applicant has a relevant right or claim, but the additional question whether the entry of a restriction is necessary or desirable for the purpose of protecting that right or claim. Both of those questions fall within what is described in section 73(7) as ‘the matter’ to be referred to the Adjudicator.’ Accordingly it was not open to the claimant to insist that the adjudicator should have limited his enquiry as she suggested. However the documents did suggest a mvement of funds of the sort alleged, but the adjudicator’s infelicity in describing this did not undermine his conclusion.
In view of the fact that the case pleaded by each party suggested serious criminal conduct on their own part, the judge requested submissions as to why the matters should not be referred to the CPS for investigation.

Briggs J
[2010] EWHC 265 (Ch), Times 09-Apr-2010, [2010] 16 EG 108, [2010] NPC 20, [2010] 8 EG 105, [2010] 1 WLR 2106
Bailii
Land Registration Act 2002 42(1)(c), Land Registration Rules 2003 (SI 2003 No 1417) 93
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – The Republic of Croatia v The Republic Of Serbia ChD 2-Jul-2009
A person may have a sufficient interest in the making of an entry to enable him (or it) to apply for the entry of a restriction within the meaning of section 43(1)(c) of the Act, on the basis of a claim to an interest in the registered estate, even . .
At LRA – Jayasinghe v Liyanage LRA 18-Feb-2010
Practice and Procedure : Scope of Jurisdiction – Dispute as to ownership of property on trusts . .

Cited by:
Cited – The Chief Land Registrar v Silkstone and Others CA 14-Jul-2011
The Chief Land Registrar appealed against the dismissal of his appeal against the adjudicator’s decision on the cancellation of a unilateral notice. On the day of the adjudication, the Silkstones had purported to withdraw their case, wanting to take . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.401646

The court was asked ‘can a man who has got his name registered as the proprietor of a parcel of registered land by wrongly claiming that he had been in adverse possession for ten years hang on to that title if the original proprietor, within 65 days of its being posted to him, failed to fill up and return a form posted to him by the Land Registry? Or can the original proprietor apply to the Registrar to have the register of title rectified by ‘correcting a mistake’? Does the machinery of the Land Registration Act 2002 allow a party to take someone else’s land by operation of a bureaucratic machinery which trumps reality?’ M had purchased a field and been registerd as its proprietor. B used it from time to time to graze his horses and then applied for and was given possessory title, exaggerating the extent of his use. M had failed to respond to the notice served on him. B now appealed against rectification by correction of a mistake.
Held: B’s appeal failed. There was no reason to limit the use of the phrase ‘correction of a mistake’ in the way suggested. B here had had no proper basis for his application. The policy behind the 2002 Act had been to make it more, not less, difficult to obtain possessory title.

Mummery, Jacob, Tomlinson LLJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 120, [2011] 1 WLR 1594
Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWCA Civ 120, [2011] 20 EG 114, [2011] 2 All ER 574
Bailii
Land Registration Act 2002 Sch 6
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Baxter v Mannion ChD 18-Mar-2010
B appealed against an order for rectification against him of the land register returning ownership to M. B had obtained registration with possessory title, claiming to have kept horses on the field for many years in adverse possession of it. M had . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.429661

The registered proprietor of land argued that he had become owner of a larger plot of land after a transfer plan showed regular boundaries but the markings on the ground showed irregular ones: ‘as we are concerned with a general filed map or plan, the sole question for us is whether, notwithstanding the transfer and the facts I have mentioned, the effect of the statutory provisions, sections 19 and 69 in particular, is that as matters stand what the defendant has, and is entitled to say he has, is a piece of land identified by reference to the map on his certificate; and the argument is that, if you look at that map, it is as plain as possible that there is no question of an angled division; the piece of land of which the defendant is certified as proprietor is regular in shape.’ As to which: ‘You are, therefore, told that this document does no more than indicate the boundaries, and – what I think is far more significant – that what they are intending to do is to show what you would find on the transfer plan. When all that is added together, I am for my part left in no doubt that this plan cannot be set up to overturn the plain effect of what otherwise would have resulted from the bargain made between the defendant and his vendor as had been recorded in his contract and in his instrument of transfer.’
Registered title plan boundaries are only indicative and the general boundaries rule allows revisions to be made to the filed plan at any time. The general boundaries rule is confined to the effect of the filed plan only.
. . And: ‘It is true that a property dispute may, and frequently does, involve boundaries, and that a boundary dispute involves in some degree a property dispute; and if the divergence is very great indeed, you may say that the matter has passed from any sensible use of the phrase ‘boundary dispute’ and becomes something else. But applying the common sense test, if, as Mr. Plowman invited us to do, you put the question here: is the plaintiff saying in truth that the defendant got the wrong property by the land certificate? I would answer the question negatively. I think, for my part, that there is no doubt that the certificate purported to give him, and gives him, the right property. What, on the evidence, it has failed to do is to indicate its boundaries with sufficient correctness and precision.’

Lord Evershed MR
[1957] Ch 251
Land Registration Act 1925 19 69
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 – 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.

Registered Land

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.197731

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 owned the ground and first and second floors of a bulding. Access to the upper stories had been through an internal staircase and a dilapidated external one, but when the new second floor was added the parties informally agreed for the construction of a new external staircase and the abandonment of the internal access. The ground floor owner then failed to execute a formal easement permitting the use of the external staircase. The owner of the upper floors did not register a caution. The ground floor owner sold his property to the now defendant Mr Yavuz.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The purchaser of the ground floor was not bound by the arrangement. The 2002 Act had left very little scope for the doctrine of notice. The use of the staircase did not amount to actual occupation of any part of the metal structure by anyone which could give the Claimant’s rights the status of an overriding interest.

Ward, Lloyd, Kitchin LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 1314
Bailii
Land Registration Act 2002 28 29 116
England and Wales
Citing:
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 – Sommer and Another v Sweet and Another CA 10-Mar-2005
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 . .
Cited – Kling v Keston Properties Ltd ChD 1985
The plaintiff had and exercised a right of pre-emption entitling him to take a long lease of a garage. He was at the time also licensee of the garage.
Held: The use of the garage amounted to actual occupation, thereby protecting the right as . .
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 – Brown v Draper CA 1944
The husband tenant had left the matrimonial home after a quarrel leaving behind some of his furniture.
Held: The husband/tenant cannot put an end to the tenancy, even by such acts as delivering the keys to the landlord, so long as his wife . .
Cited – Binions v Evans CA 27-Jan-1972
The plaintiffs had bought a cottage subjecty to a tenancy to the defendant. They sought possession saying that she held under a tenancy at will. It was a renancy for her life but described as a tenancy at will. The judge had held that the other . .
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 – Lyus v Prowsa Developments Ltd ChD 1982
The plaintiffs contracted to buy a plot of registered land with a house to be built on it. The developer had charged the estate as a whole to a bank to secure the development finance. The developer became insolvent and the bank sold the estate as . .
Cited – Kling v Keston Properties Ltd ChD 1985
The plaintiff had and exercised a right of pre-emption entitling him to take a long lease of a garage. He was at the time also licensee of the garage.
Held: The use of the garage amounted to actual occupation, thereby protecting the right as . .
Cited – Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold (2) CA 25-Feb-1988
Various leases of properties had been granted. Legal and General occupied the property under an arrangement under which they paid no rent. The landlord sought possession, saying that the agreements were licences not tenancies because of the absence . .
Cited – Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v London Residuary Body and Others HL 16-Jul-1992
The parties signed a memorandum of agreement to let a strip of land from 1930 until determined as provided, but the only provision was that the lease would continue until the land was needed for road widening and two months’ notice was given. 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 – 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 – Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co-Operative Ltd SC 9-Nov-2011
The tenant appealed against an order granting possession. The tenancy, being held of a mutual housing co-operative did not have security but was in a form restricting the landlord’s right to recover possession, and the tenant resisted saying that it . .
Strongly criticised – Peffer v Rigg and Another ChD 17-Mar-1976
The court was asked as to the protection given by the 1925 Act to a purchaser, defined as one taking in good faith for valuable consideration.
Held: A purchaser ‘cannot in my judgment be in good faith if he has in fact notice of something . .
Cited – IDC Group Ltd and others v Clark and others CA 25-Jun-1991
Sir Nicolas Browne-Wilkinson VC reviewed the cases about constructive trust claims summarising the result as follows: ‘That decision [Lyus] was approved by the Court of Appeal in Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold . . The Court of Appeal put what I hope is . .
Cited – Lloyd and others v Dugdale and Another CA 21-Nov-2001
The claimants asserted a right to possession of land, and the defendant resisted, claiming a proprietary estoppel. A predecessor had intended to grant a sub-lease to the defendant, who had arranged for his company JAD Ltd to execute major works on . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.448402

LRA Previous squatter held to have acquired possessory title to land. Current possessor in possession from before the death in 2003 of the previous squatter, initially on his behalf. Current possessor held to have been allowed to retain possession by the personal representative of previous squatter, with the intention that he should take it over from him, but no vesting assent to the land was executed. Paper title owner’s title held to have been extinguished as against the current possessor whether or not the current possessor was to be treated as a successor in title of the previous squatter.

[2011] EWLandRA 2010 – 1203
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.465874

LRA Applicant’s claim to a possessory title succeeds on the facts. Respondent’s claim that the disputed strip is a public right of way found not to be proved.
Practice when a claim is made that a route is a public right of way maintainable at the public expense considered.

[2012] EWLandRA 2011 – 1034
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.510154

LRA Rivers, Waterways and Foreshore – Trial of a preliminary issue as to whether the Applicant can establish documentary title to part of the bed and foreshore of the River Thames; the ‘ad medium filum’ rule; true construction of the words ‘in front of or immediately adjacent to’; Port of London Act 1908, sections 1, 7; Port of London Act 1912; Port of London Act 1968, section 212, and Schedule 11; Thames Conservancy Act 1857, sections 50, 51; Thames Conservancy Act 1894, sections 58, 59; Port of London (Consolidation) Act 1920, section 7; Crown Lands Act 1702, section 5; Crown Lands Act 1853, section 5; Crown Lands Act 1829, section 8; Law of Property Act 1925, section 62(3); Poor Law Amendments Act 1868, section 27;

[2013] EWLandRA 2011 – 0733
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.510147

LRA Alteration and Rectification of The Register – Lordship of the manor – fell said to be waste of the manor – applicants registered as first proprietors of both the lordship of the manor and the fell – respondents applying for closure of both titles on the ground that the lordship was no longer extant alternatively was vested in themselves – rectification and proprietors in possession.

[2012] EWLandRA 2007 – 1124
Bailii
England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.510150

LRA Application to be registered as owners on grounds of adverse possession – effect of fact that land in question subject to provision of Open Spaces Act 1906 – application given effect to.
[2009] EWLandRA 2007 – 1537
Bailii
Open Spaces Act 1906
England and Wales

Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.429625

LRA Rectification and alteration of the register – mortgage fraud – forged charge of the applicant’s house to secure loan advanced by the second respondent – loan not repaid and the house sold by the second respondent to the first respondent under a power of sale – application by the applicant to alter the register by removing the second respondent’s charge – application by the first respondent to be registered as the proprietor of the house – issue as to dates of and priority of the applications.
[2009] EWLandRA 2008 – 1081
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.429624

LRA Adverse possession – strip of land between the applicant’s registered title and the metalled highway – issues of factual possession and intention to possess – issue as to whether the disputed land was also part of the public highway.
[2009] EWLandRA 2007 – 1185
Bailii
Land Registration Act 2002
England and Wales

Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.429620

Order for debarring of respondent from taking further part
[2015] EWLandRA 2014 – 0803
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.552851

Adverse Possession : Factual Possession
[2014] EWLandRA 2013 – 0712
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.552855

Ownership of room between properties
[2015] EWLandRA 2014 – 0492
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.552845

Cancellation of unilateral notice
[2015] EWLandRA 2014 – 0902
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.552846

Claim for registration by adverse possession
[2015] EWLandRA 2014 – 0519
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.552852

Cancellation of reciprocal applications for defined boundaries.
[2015] EWLandRA 2014 – 0535
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.552843

Adverse possession – paragraph 6 of Schedule 6 – nature and extent of overt acts relied on – acts by a body of lessees – implied consent for negotiations – period of adverse possession required to support the application
[2015] EWLandRA 2014 – 0193
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.552844

Whether the Applicant had acquired easements by prescription or lost modern grant over an area of grassland owned by the Respondents
[2015] EWLandRA 2014 – 0850
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.552847

Adverse Possession : Factual Possession
[2014] EWLandRA 2013 – 1088
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.552856

Challenge to registered charge – wrong address
[2015] EWLandRA 2014 – 0618
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.552848

LRA Easements and Profits A Prendre – Applicants’ application to rectify a mistake – double registration of a very small area of land – First and Third Respondents’ subsequent application to note the benefit and burden of a prescriptive right of way over the Applicants’ property whether title rectified or not – burden of proof in respect of Applicants’ application discussed – effect of Barkas considered in relation to the prescriptive easement claim – main issue in relation to easement was the question of implied permission – decision proceeds on basis that some over act is required to indicate implied permission
[2014] EWLandRA 2012 – 0536
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.550831

LRA As a result of misrepresentations by the Respondent and errors by the Land Registry in reliance on those representations, the Respondent was registered in 1998 not only as proprietor of land to which it had title, but of adjoining land to which it had no title and which was in the possession at the time of the Applicants, who were not given any opportunity by the Land Registry to object to the Respondent’s application. Part of the land in the possession of the Applicants had been in their possession since the summer of 1991, so that a possessory title had been obtained prior to the coming into force of the Land Registration Act 2002 in October 2003, but part had only been occupied by them after October 1991 but before the Respondent obtained its registered title. The Applicants applied under the transitional provisions to be registered with a possessory title of the whole of the land occupied by them. The Respondent objected that as the title was registered, there was no right to succeed in respect of that part of the land which had only been possessed after October 1991.
Held that the Chief Land Registrar should be directed to cancel the Respondent’s registration insofar as it affected all the land in the possession of the Applicants and to give effect to the Applicants’ application for a possessory title.
[2014] EWLandRA 2014 – 0022
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.552842

LRA Practice and Procedure – direction for cancellation of notice
[2014] EWLandRA 2012 – 0567
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.550834

LRA Boundary Dispute : Accuracy of Land Registry Plans – Amendment of general plan of a registered title by the Land Registry to incorporate a small isolated landlocked pocket of land into that title without reference to the general boundaries rule or to the persons actually entitled to that land by virtue of their prior registration, those persons’ general boundaries having been inaccurately drawn to exclude that pocket of land, although it had been conveyed to one or more of them some years before.
Michael Mark
[2010] EWLandRA 2009 – 0736
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 October 2021; Ref: scu.517419

LRA Beneficial Interests, Trusts and Restrictions : Other – Caution Against First Registration – partnership – whether settled account – re-opening a settled account – laches
[2010] EWLandRA 2009 – 1485
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 October 2021; Ref: scu.517421

LRA Adverse Possession : Common Land – 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 2009 – 0953
Bailii
Commons Registration Act 1965
England and Wales

Updated: 20 October 2021; Ref: scu.517420

LRA Charges and Charging Orders : Other – Application to register transfer – transfer by local authority – section 55 of land registration act 2002- charge not registered
Michael Michell
[2010] EWLandRA 2009 – 0260
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 October 2021; Ref: scu.517417

LRA KEYWORDS: documentary title; claim for adverse possession of land part of which formerly constituted a right of way; alteration of the dominant and servient tenements; abandonment of right of way; Limitation Act 1980 section 15, schedule 1.
[2012] EWLandRA 2011 – 0993
Bailii
Limitation Act 1980 15
England and Wales

Updated: 20 October 2021; Ref: scu.465847

LRA Claims to prescriptive rights of way along the edge of a field where the owners of adjoining properties had made gates onto the field without objection is established except in the case of one Applicant who was aware that the owner of the servient land objected to her use of the route in question.
During period that land was let to tenants the registered proprietor held on the facts to have become aware of the use of the route and been in a position to take steps to prevent it.
In all the circumstances, occasional ploughing and harrowing of the field to the edge, and once or twice deepening a ditch and temporarily extending it across the path held not to be enough to make user by force or to constitute clear objection to the use of the route.
Michael Mark
[2012] EWLandRA 2011 – 0766
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 October 2021; Ref: scu.472568

LRA Easements – right of way by foot alleged over adjoining owners’ land – land previously in common ownership – absence of an express grant in the conveyance – implied grant under the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows – section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925 – power to amend statement of case.
[2011] EWLandRA 2010 – 0593
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 October 2021; Ref: scu.465849

LRA Whether deceased had over-riding interest under paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the Land Registration Act 2002 – deceased in occupation – right to seek rectification is over-riding interest – no inquiries made of her by the Bank – order that charge be removed
[2010] EWLandRA 2008 – 0602
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 October 2021; Ref: scu.465848

LRA Whether lease validly executed – section 1(3) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 – R v Her Majesty’s Commissoners of Revenue and Customs [2008] EWHC 2721 – Shah v Shah [2001] EWCA 138 – Chief Land Registrar ordered to give effect to the application
[2012] EWLandRA 2011 – 0377
Bailii
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Mercury Tax Group Ltd and Another, Regina (On the Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs and Others Admn 13-Nov-2008
The claimant sought judicial review of the lawfulness of search warrants given to the Commissioners and executed at their various offices. The Revenue had suspect the dishonest implementation of a tax avoidance scheme. The claimants said that there . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 October 2021; Ref: scu.451481

LRA Acquisition of right of way by prescription – doctrine of Lost Modern Grant – whether a right acquired for all purposes or limited to agricultural purposes only – discontinuous user – whether a gate is an interference with a right of way – precarious user – whether direction to Registrar should contain the limitation that the right is for agricultural purposes only
[2009] EWLandRA 2007 – 0938
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 October 2021; Ref: scu.429611

LRA Adverse possession – Land Registration Act 2002 Schedule 6 Paragraph 5 – Proprietary estoppel – Mistaken belief as to the true boundary
[2009] EWLandRA 2008 – 1085
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 October 2021; Ref: scu.429616

(Costs)
[2009] EWLandRA 2008 – 0305
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 October 2021; Ref: scu.429615

LRA KEYWORDS: right of way for all purposes over part of bellmouth entrance way adjoining A2 – proprietary estoppel – Land Registration Act 2002, Sch 12, para 9) – Land Registration Rules 1925, r 258 –
[2009] EWLandRA 2008 – 0083
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 October 2021; Ref: scu.429622

LRA Adverse possession – nature of possessory title – disapplication of Limitation Act 1980 to possessory title – effect of closing a possessory title – interrelation between Section 96 of and Paragraph 5 Schedule 4 to the Land Registration Act 2002 – Section 11(7) of the Land Registration Act 2002
[2009] EWLandRA 2007 – 1216
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 October 2021; Ref: scu.429614

LRA Construction of pre-registration deed – Extrinsic evidence and factual matrix – Rectification of register – whether Respondent in physical possession under Section 131(1) of the LRA 2002 – whether exceptional circumstances exist for the refusal of rectification under Paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 4 to the LRA 2002
[2009] EWLandRA 2008 – 0442
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 October 2021; Ref: scu.429613

The Land Registry general boundaries rule operates so that although the land registry plan is placed inside a road, the ad medium filae presumption still operates as regards ownership of the soil.
[1984] 2 EGLR 44
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Hurst and Another v Hampshire County Council CA 19-Jun-1997
A Local Authority is liable for any damage to adjacent property caused by the roots of a tree growing on the verge of a public highway.
Held: Pre-adoption trees vest in the highway authority for all purposes. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 August 2021; Ref: scu.235521

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Registration of real property transactions in the land register – Administrative not judicial proceeding – Lack of jurisdiction of the Court
[2001] EUECJ C-178/99, C-178/99
Bailii
European

Updated: 17 August 2021; Ref: scu.162753