First National Bank Plc v Thompson: CA 25 Jul 1995

A charge executed before a purchase was ‘fed’ by a subsequent purchase and had priority. ‘Feeding the estoppel’ doctrine may apply to charges on registered land. The estoppel was fed by a later purchase without a clear recital of the title in the charge.

Citations:

Ind Summary 31-Jul-1995, Times 25-Jul-1995, Gazette 15-Sep-1995

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Equity, Registered Land, Land

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.80559

Lord Chancellor, Regina (on the Application Of) v Chief Land Registrar: Admn 15 Jul 2005

Responsibility for magistrates courts had been transferred to the claimant, who in turn asserted that the leasehold assets of the magistrates courts be re-let in standard form in its name. The Registrar indicated his doubt that the Act could create new leases, or that they would be registered. There were particular difficulties with the creation of flying freeholds where premises were shared. The claimant sought a declaration that it could create the new leases. For one property the temporary accomodation let to the magistrates court pending redevelopment would be transformed into a virtual freehold.
Held: The power granted was a power of transfer only and not a power to create leases. There was no power for the Lord Chancellor to set the terms of a lease and impose them on a local authority. It might have been better if Parliament had done so but it had not. The proposal for transfer of freeholds where premises were shared would have serious and unintended financial consequences for those parts of buildings which were not occupied as Magistartes courts, and an express power would have been required for this purpose. No such express power had been given.

Judges:

Stanley Burnton LJ

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1706 (Admin), Times 09-Aug-2005, [2006] 2 WLR 1118, [2006] QB 795, [2005] 4 All ER 643

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Courts Act 2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land, Magistrates

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.229307

Clearbrook Property Holdings Limited v Verrier: ChD 1974

The issue was whether a caution registered in the Land Registry by a plaintiff purchaser who was claiming specific performance of an agreement for sale should be vacated. The effect of the vacation of the caution was that the plaintiff’s claim for specific performance would have been put in a position in which it was bound to fail in limine.
Held: To redress the unfairness to the defendant vendor, whose property was unsaleable while the caution remained registered, the caution should be vacated on the plaintiffs being given the opportunity to make an immediate application for an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from dealing with the land in any way inconsistent with the plaintiff’s claim pending the trial, which would not be opposed by the defendant, and the defendant getting a cross undertaking in damages.

Judges:

Templeman J

Citations:

[1974] 1 WLR 243

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

ApprovedTiverton Estates Ltd v Wearwell Ltd CA 1975
“Subject to Contract” not to be diluted
‘subject to contract’ proposals remain in negotiation until a formal contract is executed. Lord Denning MR said: ‘for over a hundred years, the courts have held that the effect of the words ‘subject to contract’ is that the matter remains in . .
CitedNugent 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 . .
CitedNugent 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.

Land, Contract, Registered Land

Updated: 12 December 2022; Ref: scu.243395

Chattey and Another v Farndale Holdings Inc and others: CA 11 Oct 1996

The plaintiffs had paid deposits for apartments which were to be built. After the developer became insolvent the plaintiffs sought recovery of the deposits, saying they had a lien which preceded the claims of chargees.
Held: The one appeal failed and another succeeded. ‘the circumstances in which a purchaser’s lien will arise are not limited to those in which the contract is or has been specifically enforceable but include those in which there is or has been a right to call for the legal estate whether presently, in the future or conditionally so as to give rise to the equitable interest or estate. . . ‘
and ‘It is not disputed that the purchaser’s lien arises by operation of law from the contract unless it is modified or excluded by express agreement of the parties or by necessary implication from the contractual arrangements the parties have entered into. The lien so arising is an unqualified equitable right. In common with all other equitable rights it is capable of being subordinated to the rights of a subsequent purchaser for value of a legal estate without notice of the equitable right. But that inherent weakness is no reason to modify the nature of the right itself. ‘

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Civ 696, [1997] 1 EGLR 153, (1998) 75 P and CR 298, [1997] 06 EG 152, [1996] NPC 136

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 70(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRose 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 . .
CitedLondon 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 . .
CitedSainsbury v O’Connor CA 1991
Sainsbury and a Belgian company held 75% and 25% respectively of a joint venture company. Sainsbury had an option, not exercised for 5 years, to acquire the 25% holding. The option was never exercised and was cancelled. The court was asked whether . .
CitedHewitt v Court 15-Mar-1983
Austlii (High Court of Australia) Lien – Equitable – Contract for provision of work, labour and materials – Progress payments – Whether lien obtained over unfinished object – Whether dependent upon right to . .
CitedLevy v Stogdon 1898
Specific performance of a contract by an assignees of the purchaser was dismissed on the grounds of delay, but his claim for a lien was upheld. . .
CitedWhitbread and Co Ltd v Watt CA 1902
The buyer agreed to buy a house when the developer had finished 300 houses on the site, but now sought return of his deposit.
Held: The developer’s appeal against an order for the return of the deposit failed.
Williams LJ said: ‘The lien . .
CitedWhitbread and Co Ltd v Watt ChD 1901
The purchaser contracted to purchase a plot on a building estate belonging to the vendor. The contract provided that ‘the purchase is to be completed as soon as 300 houses shall have been erected on the said estate’. Thus the contract was one under . .
CitedMiddleton v Magnay 1864
The vendor had agreed to grant a 21 year lease over certain land. In fact he only had an eight year lease in half the land. When the contract went off on account of the inability of the vendor to grant the lease contracted for the purchaser claimed . .
CitedAshburn 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 . .
CitedLyus 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Contract, Registered Land

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.140563

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. A barrister was wrong to make allegations against a judge without having supporting evidence.

Citations:

Independent 16-Jan-1996, Times 08-Jan-1996

Statutes:

Land Registration Rules 1925 8258

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedCelsteel 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 by:

CitedBhullar and Another v McArdle CA 10-Apr-2001
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Registered Land

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.89791

Breskvar v Wall: 13 Dec 1971

(High Court of Australia) B, the registered proprietor of land, had obtained a loan of money from P. As security, he had given to P a signed memorandum of transfer and the certificate of title for the land. The memorandum of transfer was void under section 53(5) of The Stamps Act 1894 (Qld), which provided that any instrument of conveyance or transfer shall be void and inoperative ‘unless the name of the purchaser or transferee is written therein in ink at the time of the execution thereof. P, in fraud of B, filled in W’s name on the transfer and registered him as owner. W, who was a party to the fraud, sold the land to A Company. However, before A lodged its transfer for registration, B discovered the fraud and lodged a caveat.
The case came before the High Court on appeal from the Supreme Court of Queensland where B had sought a declaration of right and orders for the
cancellation of a dealing registered under The Real Property Acts 1861-1963 (Qld) and an amendment of the relevant certificate of title. The Supreme Court of Queensland held in favour of A, ordering B to remove the caveat.
B had an equitable right to have the void transfer ‘ set aside and to have his name restored to the Register as against the fraudulent W-although the Court did not attempt to characterize this as either an equitable interest or a mere equity. Thus, it was not called upon to discuss the difficulties caused by the judgments of Kitto J. and Taylor J. in Latec Znvestments Ltd v. Hotel Terrigal Pty Ltd (In Liq.).3 However, in this case Their Honours had to decide whether W had acquired a fee simple interest by registration. If not, he obviously could not pass any interest to A.
Held: The Court relied on the Privy Council decision in Frazer v. Walker in preference to the judgment of Dixon J. in Clement v. Ellis. Their Honours found that registration of his title by W conclusively passed the fee simple despite the fact that the transfer by which he obtained title was void due to the provisions of The Stamps Act 1894 (Qld). The fact that an instrument of transfer of land was void or voidable did not prevent the transferee from acquiring an indefeasible interest in accordance with the instrument when it was registered.

Citations:

(1972) 46 ALJR 68, [1972] MelbULawRw 23, [1971] 126 C.L.R. 376

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

CitedFrazer v Walker PC 1967
A forged memorandum of mortgage granted by one of two joint proprietors was registered and subsequently enforced by the mortgagees on default by the mortgagor. A purchaser in good faith at auction whose title was thereafter registered was held . .
CitedRacoon Limited v Harris Turnbull, Executor of James Turnbull (Deceased) and others PC 22-May-1996
(British Virgin Islands) The land registrar had incorrectly registered land without mention of a lease of a right of way.
Held: ‘The philosophy underlying a system of registration of title is that it confers indefeasibility of title to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.242120

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 been made because he had acquired more than he had bargained for.
Held: The appeal succeeded, but only in part. The land charges search carried out by the purchaser was not sufficient to entitle him to take free from the covenants, and not to order rectification would give the purchaser a windfall.

Judges:

Mummery LJ

Citations:

[1999] 80 P and CR D16)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromHorrill 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 by:

CitedSainsbury’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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.258361

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 title. Actual occupation of part of the land comprised in a registered disposition protected a right or interest in relation to any part of that land.
Robert Walker LJ set out the principles applying to overriding interests: ‘The function of overriding interests in registered conveyancing is comparable to that of notice (actual, constructive or imputed) in unregistered conveyancing, but there are significant differences and the burden on a purchaser to make enquiries is now heavier than before. The rights of an occupier of registered land are to be distinguished from the fact of his occupation. The capacity in which a person occupies (for instance, as a tenant) need not be indicative of the right which he claims (or instance, an option to purchase the freehold reversion or an unpaid vendor’s lien). The occupier need not (in order to rely on s. 70(1)(g)) be in actual occupation of the whole of the land comprised in a registered disposition (whether that disposition is from the registered proprietor’s point of view a transfer of the whole, or a transfer of part, or a demise or other disposition taking effect in relation to the whole or part’

Judges:

Robert Walker, Stuart-Smith, Thorpe LJJ

Citations:

Times 08-Dec-1998, Gazette 10-Dec-1998, Gazette 27-Jan-1999, [1999] 1 All ER 977, [1999] Ch 355

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 70(1)(g)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedYoung v The Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd CA 28-Jul-1944
Court of Appeal must follow Own Decisions
The claimant was injured and received compensation. He then sought to recover again, alleging breach of statutory duty by his employers.
Held: The Court of Appeal was in general bound to follow its own previous decisions. The court considered . .
CitedBridges v Mees ChD 1957
An overriding interest, namely an estate contract, was protected under s. 70(1) of the Act even though it could have been protected by a caution under s. 59. . .
CitedWebb v Pollmount Ltd ChD 1966
An option to purchase the reversion contained in a seven-year lease was protected under s. 70(1) by virtue of the tenant’s occupation under the lease. ‘It is vital . . . to bear in mind that what we are seeking to ascertain at present is whether . .
CitedCelsteel 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 . .
CitedRickards v Rickards CA 1990
The Court of Appeal considered the circumstances in which it could depart from its own earlier decisions under the residual principle. The court refused to follow a previous decision of the same court because, although the relevant House of Lords . .
CitedCrumpton 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 . .
CitedHomsy v Murphy CA 27-Feb-1996
The plaintiff held a right of pre-emption over the freehold reversion on the building containing his flat. He appealed the award of andpound;5.00 damages for its breach. The judge had discounted an offer received by the plaintiff of andpound;100,000 . .
CitedNational Provincial Bank Ltd v Hastings Car Mart Ltd CA 1964
The purpose and effect of section 70(1)(g) of the Land Registration Act 1925 was to make applicable to registered land the same rule as previously had been held to apply to unregistered land. (Russell LJ, Dissenting) ‘Nor should the mind be in any . .
CitedNational Provincial Bank Limited v Ainsworth HL 1965
The significance of the distinction between occupation and rights was that although the deserted wife was in actual occupation of the former matrimonial home, the quality of her rights was not such as to be capable of amounting to an overriding . .
CitedLondon Cheshire Co v Laplagrene 1971
A houseowner sold his freehold but remained in occupation as a tenant whilst the balance of the purchase price remained unpaid.
Held: His occupation as tenant protected his unpaid vendor’s lien although it arose from a different transaction. . .
CitedHodgson 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 . .
CitedKling 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 . .
OverruledAshburn Anstalt v Arnold (1) CA 27-Oct-1987
Houses in Kensington were let together for a term of just over 50 years. There was just one title for the headlease. Informal subleases of parts had been granted granted at no rent. After several dealings with the titles, and the plaintiffs came to . .
OverruledAshburn 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 . .
CitedPrudential 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 . .
CitedWilliams 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.145353

Pick v Chief Land Registrar: ChD 21 Jan 2011

The Court was asked: ‘Whether, apart from and without prejudice to paragraph 14 of the defence, the cancellation of the restriction in favour of the claimant on 13th August 2008 and the restriction [sic]’ (by which it is agreed was meant ‘registration’) ‘on that date of Ms Awokiyesi in place of the bankrupt was a mistake for the purpose of Schedule 8 to the Land Registration Act 2002.’

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 206 (Ch), [2012] Ch 564, [2011] BPIR 1090, [2012] 39 EG 125, [2012] 3 WLR 3

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land, Insolvency

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.450231

Regina v Surrey County Council Ex Parte Bridge Court Holdings Ltd and Others: QBD 24 Feb 2000

Land was transferred to a company but the transfer not registered. The land had the benefit of a certificate of lawfulness of existing use for waste disposal. Doubts had arisen in the local authority about the correctness of the certificate, and they revoked it. They failed to serve the new owners or an occupier of part of the land. They failed also to investigate the circumstances as advised by their officers. The revocation was set aside as Wednesbury unreasonable.

Citations:

Gazette 24-Feb-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Registered Land

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.85572

Franks and Another v Bedward and Another: ChD 13 Jul 2010

Application by claimants for directions sufficient to ensure the effective reinstatement of an application which they made to the Land Registry for registration of title to land which they claim by adverse possession.

Judges:

Briggs J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 1650 (Ch), [2010] 41 EG 128, [2010] NPC 81, [2010] 29 EG 86 (CS)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.420697

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 of mortgages, had lost the right to possession. The assignments had been left uncompleted.
Held: The legal title remained vested in the claimants subject to the equitable rights of the assignee. The position for registered land and unregistered land was different. For registered land the rights of the transferor were unaffected until the assignment was registered. The right to make a possession claim had not been affected. ‘One incident of its legal ownership – and an essential one at that – is the right to possession of the mortgaged property.’

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 760, Times 19-Jul-2005, [2005] 1 WLR 3412

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Lawof Property Act 1925 114, Land Registration Act 1925 33

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedParagon Finance plc v Nash etc CA 15-Oct-2001
The court was asked to consider whether there was any implied term limiting the power of a mortgagee to set interest rates under a variable rate mortgage.
Held: A loan arrangement which allowed a lender to vary the implied rate of interest, . .
CitedBarclays Bank Ltd v Bird 1954
An equitable chargee has an immediate right to possession, subject only to his first obtaining an order for possession from the court: ‘An equitable mortgagee . . has no right to possession until the court gives it to him.’ . .
CitedCity of London Building Society v Flegg And Another HL 14-May-1987
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 . .
CitedCredit and Mercantile Plc v Feliciangela Marks CA 14-May-2004
The defendant had charged her home to the claimant and fallen into arrears. There was a sub-charge executed on the same day in favour of the Bank of Scotland (BOS) under which the claimant agreed to repay to BOS the amount it owed to them.
CitedAbu Dhabi National Tanker Co v Product Star Shipping Ltd (No 2) CA 1993
Where parties enter into a contract which confers a discretion on one of them, the discretion must be exercised honestly and in good faith, and not ‘arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably’. The owner had acted unreasonably in that there was no . .
CitedWhiteley v Delaney HL 1914
A farm in Yorkshire had been charged by O first to A and then to the plaintiff, and the charges registered under the Yorkshire Registry Acts. An attempt was made to sell of part of the land by o to his daughter to repay some of the money. She . .
CitedBroadwick Financial Services Limited v Spencer, Spencer CA 30-Jan-2002
The respondents appealed an order for possession under a legal charge which they argued was an extortionate credit bargain, and had been improperly executed and was unenforceable. The appellants were ‘non-status borrowers’.
Held: A concession . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Registered Land

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.227926

Shami v Shami: CA 20 Mar 2013

The court was asked as to the right of a third party to register charges on the disputed property under the provisions of the Land Registration Acts 1925 and 2002 against the opposition of a divorcing party, who relies on the Israeli judgments as establishing the relationship of trustee and beneficiary and an equal beneficial interest in the property.

Judges:

Mummery, Tomlinsion, Davis LJJ

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 227

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471917

Santander UK Plc v Keeper of The Registers of Scotland: SCS 8 Feb 2013

Opinion – The claimant objected that the respondent had acted upon a forged deed discharging their registered legal charge. The pursuer said that the registration had been allowed negligently.

Judges:

Lord Boyd of Duncansby

Citations:

[2013] ScotCS CSOH – 24

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Registered Land, Negligence

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.470960

Hughmans Solicitors v Central Stream Services Ltd and Another: CA 20 Dec 2012

The court was asked whether a contract compromising legal proceedings created a proprietary interest in property owned by the defendant in the proceedings and, if so, whether it took priority over a later charging order over the property. Notice of the charging order, but not the contract, was entered against the registered title to the property under the Land Registration Act 2002.

Judges:

Ward, Hughes LJJ, Richards J

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1720

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.470123

Devanney v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 13 Dec 2012

The claimant had for many years operated a mobile cafe from a layby on land owned by the respondents. He had claimed title to it by adverse possession. He appealed against rejection of the claim, the court having found that his occupation had not been continuous.
Held: The evidence was clear and saitisfactory that he had not been in occupation of the land for the full period suggested. The appeal failed.

Judges:

Arden, McFalane LJJ, Sir Stephen Sedley

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1660

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 15, Land Registration Act 2002 9691)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land, Limitation

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.467099

Khalifa Holdings Aktiengesellschaft v Way (Alteration and Rectification of The Register): LRA 11 Mar 2010

LRA Rectification of register – adverse possession – whether notice of respondent’s application given to applicant – land registration rules 2003 r.198 – possession – permission

Citations:

[2010] EWLandRA 2008 – 1438

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.467667

Gunnerside Estates Limited v Terence Milner, Cynthia Mary Milner (Easements): LRA 18 Aug 2010

LRA An application to cancel a unilateral notice in respect of shooting rights on the basis that such rights interfered with the registered proprietors’ human rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 1 of the First Protocol. Human rights found to have no relevance to the question of cancellation, but if relevant found that the shooting rights do not interfere with the Convention rights, but the cancellation would adversely affect the Convention rights of the owner of the shooting rights.

Citations:

[2010] EWLandRA 2009 – 1331

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land, Human Rights

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.467675

Dennis Philip Crowe v Stapleton Construction Limited (Easements): LRA 11 Jun 2010

LRA Prescriptive easement to use open space as a communal garden established on the facts and found to be an overriding interest. Nature of requisite user for such an easement considered. Caution effective although registered to protect a similar right under a lease which was accepted at the hearing as being void under the law against perpetuities.
Cases referred to: Dunn v Blackdown Properties, [1961] Ch 33; Re Ellenborough Park, [1956] Ch 131; Jackson v Mulvaney, [2003] 1 WLR 360; Bridle v Ruby, [1989] 1 QB 169.

Citations:

[2010] EWLandRA 2008 – 1105

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.467672

Marner, and Marner v Clarke (Easements): LRA 19 Feb 2010

LRA Application to register a right of way – construction of agreement by vendor in transfer to allow ‘ addition of access gate to the Property’ – whether right implied if not express – Chief Land Registrar ordered to cancel the application for cancellation of the notice protecting the claimed right.

Judges:

Ann McAllister, sitting as Deputy Adjudicator

Citations:

[2010] EWLandRA 2009 – 0622

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.467665

Karen Louise Stewart v Lancashire Mortgage Corporation Limited (Alteration and Rectification of The Register): LRA 19 Aug 2010

LRA Alteration of the register-fraud-‘correcting a mistake’-fraudulent transfer and then charge-Schedule 4 paragraph 5(1)(a) of the Land Registration Act 2002-whether the decision in Barclays Bank v Guy is to be preferred over that in Ajibade v Bank of Scotland
Whether there are ‘exceptional circumstances’ within paragraph 6(3) to Schedule 4.

Citations:

[2010] EWLandRA 2009 – 0086

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.467676

Thomas Lamplugh Ballantine Dykes v Cumbria County Council, John Terence Hewitt (Boundary Dispute): LRA 26 Mar 2010

LRA Application to amend the general boundary of the Applicant’s land fails for lack of evidence as to where that boundary should be. Grass verges to road found to be part of public highway maintainable at the public expense. Highway Authority cannot be precluded by its conduct from asserting that the verges were so maintainable. Use of the verges by the public for parking without objection from the Highway Authority is not evidence that the verges are not so maintained or that the verges do not form part of the highway. Extent of right of public to park on the highway considered.

Citations:

[2010] EWLandRA 2007 – 1107

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.467668

Peter Charles Burton, Susan Anne Bamford v Eric Charles Walker, Angela Walker (Alteration and Rectification of The Register): LRA 10 Dec 2010

LRA 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.

Citations:

[2010] EWLandRA 2007 – 1124

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.467677

British Waterways Board v James Mason, David Devere ( Rivers, Waterways and Foreshore): LRA 29 Mar 2010

LRA Application for first registration of land and waterway at Brentford Dock – claim by Respondents that ownership of canal by Applicant did not extend to its full width – true construction of relevant legislation – Grand Junction Canal Act 1793, ss. 1, 4, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18, 25, 27, 28 – Transport Act 1962, ss. 1 and 31 – Regent’s Canal and Dock Company (Grand Junction Canal Purchase) Act 1928, ss. 4 and 34, and sch. 1 – Section 12(1), Transport Act 1947, sch, 3, pt. II; SI 1962 No 2634

Citations:

[2010] EWLandRA 2008 – 1004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.467666

Skipwith v Singh (Adverse Possession): LRA 4 May 2010

LRA Adverse possession – Lease – Loft Room – Encroachment on landlord’s title – Accretion to Lease – Limitation Act 1980 – Sch 6 Land Registration Act 2002 – Form NAP – failure to serve counter-notice under Sch 6 para 5

Citations:

[2010] EWLandRA 2009 – 0850

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.467671

Raj Properties Limited v James Walter John Wallace-Jarvis (Adverse Possession): LRA 8 Apr 2010

LRA Claim under schedule 6 of the Land Registration Act 2002 for adverse possession of a flat by a squatter after the landlord had retaken possession of the flat but without having the leasehold title closed. Claim made to the Land Registry only in respect of the leasehold title. Claim upheld in respect of the leasehold title (subject to such right as the landlord may have to apply to have that title closed). Claim would not have succeeded if the Respondent had required the application to be dealt with under paragraph 5 of Schedule 6. Applicant refused permission to include a claim to the freehold title to the flat as no application in respect of the freehold title had been made to the Land Registry.

Citations:

[2010] EWLandRA 2009 – 1095

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.467670

Barwell, Ingham v Skinner: LRA 19 Dec 2011

Alteration and Rectification of The Register – Rectification and alteration of the register – adjoining properties once in common ownership – the respondent’s property sold off first in 1975 and registered first in 1990 – at the time of first registration the title plan of the respondent’s property included the disputed land – application to remove the disputed land from the respondent’s title and to add it to the applicants’ title – issues as to whether the disputed land was conveyed to the respondent’s predecessors in title in 1975 – whether the application was for rectification or alteration of the register – whether the respondent was a proprietor in possession – whether there were exceptional circumstances justifying not making the alteration.

Citations:

[2011] EWLandRA 2010 – 0982

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465877

Neiland, etc v Revenue and Customs: LRA 16 Dec 2011

LRA Practice and Procedure (1) Application to appeal direction- treated as applications to vary or review direction-effect of S.79(1) Finance Act 2003- HELD — Application to vary dismissed- direction to continue as amended

Judges:

Abbey DA

Citations:

[2011] EWLandRA 2011 – 0186

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Finance Act 2003 79(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land, Taxes Management

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465876

Cato v Murphy and Murphy ( Practice and Procedure): LRA 11 Oct 2011

LRA Respondents’ application to strike out the Applicant for abuse of process and/or under Rule 32A – application for determined boundary – same boundary in dispute in earlier County Court proceedings – earlier proceedings struck out for breach of Court orders – determined boundary application struck out as an abuse of process – in the alternative application struck out as having no real prospect of success

Citations:

[2011] EWLandRA 2011 – 0053

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465873

Michael Abbs, Rachel Marie Hoey v Edward James Eldridge, Joanna Claire Eldridge (Adverse Possession): LRA 21 Sep 2011

LRA Application for first registration of land – objection based on adverse possession – whether application for first registration is ‘action for recovery of land’ – consideration of provisions of Limitation Act 1980 and Land Registration Act 2002

Citations:

[2011] EWLandRA 2010 – 1166

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land, Limitation

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465870

Anthony Robert Cooper v Alan Charles Prince, Terence John Madden, Paul Nicholas Bakewell (Easements and Profits A Prendre): LRA 31 Aug 2011

LRA Profit a prendre; right to exercise common of pasture; doctrine of Lost Modern Grant; Prescription Act 1832; Land Registration Act 2002, ss. 33, 34, 40, 65, sch 4, para. 5(b) or (c); Commons Registration Act 1965, ss 1, 13(b); Commons Act 2006; New Forest Claims Act 1854; New Forest Act 1877; Commons Registration (New Land) Regulations 1969, reg. 3; Commons Act 2006 Commencement No. 2, Transitional Provisions and Savings) (England) Order 2007; Commons Registration (Time Limits) Order 1966, Arts. 2. 3); of the 2002 Act

Citations:

[2011] EWLandRA 2010 – 0571

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465869

Davies v Lloyd and Another (Evidence): LRA 19 Apr 2011

Application for first registration – lost, stolen, or destroyed documents of title – Respondents’ case based on a claim for adverse possession – relevance or otherwise of the Land Registration Act 2002, sections 97 and 134, Schedule 6 paragraph 5(4), and Schedule12 paragraph 18(1) to the case – Land Registry Practice Guide 2

Citations:

[2011] EWLandRA 2010 – 0728

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 2002 97 134

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465858

Mohammed Iqbal v Mohammed Usman Najeeb, GMAC-Rfc Limited, Webb Resolution Limited (Deeds): LRA 17 Feb 2011

LRA Validity of power of attorney when executed while the donor has severe mental problems. Revocation of power. Purported exercise of power by donee to transfer the property to his own son. Effect of delay by Applicant to protect his position after becoming aware of what had happened.

Citations:

[2011] EWLandRA 2009 – 1234

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465854

Bernard David Thomas Lewis, Barbara May Lewis v Bernard David Sharpheale (Deeds): LRA 3 May 2011

LRA Execution of TR1 – witness not attesting document in presence of signatories – facsimile of transferors’ signatures applied to TR1 – execution invalid under Land Registration Rules 2003 and Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989

Citations:

[2011] EWLandRA 2010 – 0855

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465860

Wilkin and Sons Limited v Agricultural Facilities Limited (Easements and Profits A Prendre): LRA 10 Apr 2012

LRA Easements and Profits A Prendre – KEYWORDS: Right of way over track by prescription at common law – user as of right; doctrine of Lost Modern Grant – Prescription Act 1832 ss.2, 4 – whether reference to the Adjudicator constitutes a ‘suit or action’ for the purposes of s. 2 – whether such right is at all times and for all purposes – Land Registration Rules 2003 Rule 73(A)

Citations:

[2012] EWLandRA 2011 – 0420

Links:

Bailii

Registered Land

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465844

The Secretary of State for Transport v Quest Maidstone Ltd (Adverse Possession): LRA 11 Apr 2011

LRA Registration of freehold with possessory title based on 12 years’ adverse possession – land in ownership of Crown – application to close title on grounds that 30 years’ adverse possession required – adverse possession not made out for requisite period – whether title acknowledged – acknowledgment sent indirectly to paper title owner- effect of acknowledgment sent to District Valuer – whether time runs against the paper title owner after section 96 of the Land Registration Act 2002 came into force – order that the Disputed Land should be removed from the Respondent’s title

Citations:

[2011] EWLandRA 2010 – 0210

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465859

Nottingham City Council v Berresford and Others (Adverse Possession): LRA 30 Mar 2011

LRA Application by a local authority to register a charge by way of legal mortgage following declaration of charge pursuant to section 22 of Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983 – Respondents asserting beneficial interest over property by reason of an express, constructive or resulting trust – whether Respondents establish a beneficial interest – nature of the beneficial interest – whether statutory conditions for local authority to declare charge fulfilled

Citations:

[2011] EWLandRA 2010 – 0577

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465855

Robinson v Arthur (Easements): LRA 5 Jan 2011

LRA Right of way by prescription established on facts under the doctrine of lost modern grant. No absolute rule that non-user for over a year defeats a claim based on 20 years user.
Hollins v Verney (1884) 13 QBD 304, Tehidy Minerals v Norman, [1971] 2 QB 528 and Mills v Silver, [1991] 1 Ch 271 applied.
Question how the expression ‘next before some suit or action’ in s.4 of the Prescription Act 1832 applies in a dispute referred by the Chief Land Registrar to the Adjudicator.

Citations:

[2011] EWLandRA 2010 – 0239

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465852

Brown v Collins and Others (Easements): LRA 4 Jul 2011

LRA The Applicant proved that for over 20 years between 1985 and 2008, about 12 times a year, he had gone on foot across the edge of a field between the public highway and the back of his house to bring logs and ladders to the back of the house and to exercise his dog. To do this the Applicant would climb over a wall at the end of the courtyard behind the house which was sufficiently high to require either some athleticism or the use of steps. Between 1985 and 1996 the field was found to be surrounded by an electric and pig wire fence erected by a licensee under a grazing agreement each spring and taken down in late autumn each year. While it was there, the route could only be accessed at either end by climbing through or over the fence and throwing the dog over or through it, moving the upper strand of fencing to get through. Access was obtained from the roadway through a hole in the hedge about 2 to 3 feet wide and access to and from the house was by climbing over a wall which required steps or some athleticism to get over. The wall, which was the property of the Applicant, had once had an opening onto the field but it had been filled in by a friend of the Applicant in about 1985. The Applicant’s occasional use of the route, which was held to be on foot and occasionally with a wheelbarrow, left no visible track and the wall appeared to the casual onlooker to suggest that there was no access to the house from the field. The evidence was that the trustees had no actual knowledge of the use of the route. The route had been fenced off in July 2008, but this had been protested and early in 2009 the Applicant applied to the Land Registry to register a right of way with vehicles. That application was referred to the Adjudicator, the reference being received by him on 13 August 2009.
Held: 1. The fencing had not been acquiesced in for over a year prior to the suit before the Adjudicator. The objections and the application to the Land Registry meant that a right under the Prescription Act 1832 could be claimed on appropriate evidence notwithstanding the obstruction

Citations:

[2011] EWLandRA 2009 – 1013

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465865

Norman Alan Matthews, Elizabeth Anne Matthews v Herefordshire Council (Easements and Profits A Prendre): LRA 11 Aug 2011

LRA Acquisition of prescriptive right of way – servient land a common – claim that servient owner consented to the user rejected – claim that the user was by force rejected

Citations:

[2011] EWLandRA 2011 – 0056

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465868

Khan and Others v Khan and Others (Practice and Procedure): LRA 27 Jan 2011

LRA Applications to alter the proprietorship register – dispute as to the properly appointed trustees of a charity – one party directed to commence court proceedings under section 110(1) of the Land Registration Act 2002 – proceedings struck out for failure to obtain consent of the Charity Commission – whether consent of the Charity Commission required to proceed with the reference to the adjudicator – what directions should be given following the striking out of the court proceedings.

Citations:

[2011] EWLandRA 2008 – 0837

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 2002 110(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465851

Kent County Council v Jenny Fremlin (Adding and Substituting Parties): LRA 14 Jan 2011

LRA Where an objection is made to the Chief Land Registrar under section73 of the Land Registration Act 2002 by somebody who would not be an appropriate party in respect of the dispute if there were court proceedings, the Adjudicator has a discretion how to proceed taking into account the overriding objective set out in rule 3 of the Adjudicator to Her Majesty’s Land Registry (Practice and Procedure) Rules 2003. In a clear case that may involve directing the Chief Land Registrar to give effect to or to cancel the referred application. In other cases it may involve the substitution or addition of an appropriate Respondent. It is not appropriate to conduct lengthy judicial proceedings between A and B, when the issues raised are in fact only between A and C, and a decision between A and B will not bind either A or C as against the other of them.
In the present case, even on the basis that there is an arguable case as regards the amount of, and validity of an assessment made by the Applicant under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948, this does not invalidate the charge declared by the Applicant under section 22 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Act 1983 as a result of that party’s failure to pay any sum assessed as due under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948. Accordingly, it is not appropriate to add the person whose land is the subject of the charge as a Respondent, in the absence of any attempt by her to challenge the charge.
Given the age and state of health of that person, and the problems that would be caused by joining her, together with other matters referred to in the decision, on the arguments to date she should not be joined even if there was a serious issue to be tried as to the validity of the charge, as a decision that it should be registered will not prevent a subsequent challenge to it by her personal representatives, and there is no suggestion that there will be any need to deal with the property in the meantime.

Citations:

[2011] EWLandRA 2010 – 0756

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465850

Webb, Perks v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council: LRA 5 May 2011

LRA Easements and Profits A Prendre – Applicants held to have acquired a right of way by lost modern grant and under the Prescription Act 1832, the user having been acquiesced in at latest from 1984, following the Applicants’ decision to ignore an offer of a limited licence to use the route. Subsequent correspondence from the Respondent in 1986 held not to amount to a licence. The user continued to be acquiesced in until December 2009 notwithstanding letters from the Respondent from the end of 2005 claiming that there was no right to use the route but without demanding that such user should cease.
Claims by the Respondent that any right of way had been abandoned, that the Applicants were estopped from relying on any such right and that the rules as to prescriptive easements infringed Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights rejected

Judges:

Mark DA

Citations:

[2011] EWLandRA 2010 – 0892

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465861

Curatus Trust Company (Mauritius) Limited v The Mayor and Burgesses of The London Borough of Wandsworth (Adverse Possession): LRA 13 Mar 2012

LRA Application based on adverse intention – whether intention established – whether omission of disputed land from planning application of surrounding land amounts to an acknowledgement of title within section 29 of the Limitation Act – Chief Land Registrar order to give effect to the application

Citations:

[2012] EWLandRA 2011 – 0260

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465843

Morris v Rae: SC 7 Nov 2012

The pursuer had bought land from the responder which in turn had bought from a company now in liquidation. On application for registration, the Keepr of the registers said the title had not been made out, and he was unable to complete the registration. The appeallant claimed breach of warrandice, the contractual warranty of title given by a vendor to a purchaser. There had been an eviction threat at an earlier stage, but the threat was made by someone whose own title had not been perfected. The Court was now asked whether the person who makes the threat of eviction has to have an unquestionable title to the property at the time when the threat is made and, if not, what the purchaser in those circumstances has to show in order to trigger the seller’s liability under the warrandice.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The Appellant was entitled to be given an opportunity to present his case before the court. A threat of eviction needd not always be made by someone with a title to the land. The law of warrandice had to allow that a threat may be properly acceeded to and therefore a claim made under warrandice, when the threat had proper substance.

Judges:

Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Walker, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath

Citations:

[2012] UKSC 45, 2012 GWD 37-742, UKSC 2011/0118

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC

Statutes:

Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedClark v Lindale Homes Limited SCS 1994
The court set out the conditions to found a claim for breach of warrandice on a land purchase: ‘Although eviction did not mean physical removal, it did involve the emergence of a real or threatened burden on the property which had to come from a . .
Appeal fromMorris v Rae SCS 5-Apr-2011
The complainer had purchased land from the defender, but the Keeper of the Registers refused to register the transfer, saying that the disponer was not the owner. The claim was for breach of warrandice. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Registered Land

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465602

Rother District Investments Limited v Corke, Orr, Richards: ChD 20 Jan 2004

The court was asked as to the legal effect of a purported peaceable re-entry and forfeiture of a lease by a purchaser of the reversion prior to registration of the purchaser as proprietor at HM Land Registry.
Held: The appeal was denied. What had been ‘a forfeiture by estoppel’ between Rother and the Defendants was ‘fed’ and became a full legal forfeiture valid as against the world.

Judges:

Lightman J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 14 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

MentionedThomas v Thomas 1835
A unity of possession of the land in and of the land in qua an easement exists, does not extinguish but only suspends the easement, where the party is seised in fee of the one parcel , and possessed for the residue of a term of the other. – Where a . .
CitedG S Fashions Ltd v B and Q Plc ChD 26-Oct-1994
The landlord’s forfeiture of a lease, having once been accepted by the tenant, the landlord could not then withdraw the forfeiture against the tenant’s wishes. He had raised an estoppel precluding him from denying that he had forfeited the lease. . .
CitedFarrow v Orttewell CA 1933
A purchaser of the freehold reversion on a lease who prior to registration of his title served a notice to quit on the tenant, on which the tenant acted, was estopped from denying that the notice was valid on the ground of his lack of title when it . .
CitedIn the Goods of McLean 1950
The presumption of regularity raises a probability that a will has been duly attested. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Registered Land

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.192046

Urban Manor Limited v Sadiq: CA 20 Feb 1997

Appeal by prospective purchaser of property from order that contract rescinded, and deposit forfeited.

Judges:

Morritt LJ

Citations:

Gazette 26-Mar-1997, Times 21-Mar-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 1062, [1997] 1 WLR 1016

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 110

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedMcCausland and Another v Duncan Lawrie Ltd and Another CA 18-Jun-1996
The parties entered into a written contract for the sale of land which, in error, provided for completion on a Sunday. The parties varied the date to the Friday but did not execute a new contract which would comply with section 2(1) of the 1989 Act. . .
CitedFirstpost Homes Ltd v Johnson and Others CA 14-Aug-1995
The parties disputed whether a contract had been made. The proposed contract was contained in a letter and a plan but only the plan was signed by both parties.
Held: The requirements of Section 2 had not been satisfied because it was the . .

Cited by:

CitedP and O Overseas Holdings Ltd v Rhys Braintree Ltd and Another CA 12-Mar-2002
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land, Land

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.141458

Cooper and Another v Cooper: CA 27 Jun 2012

The Land Registry adjudicator had found a signature on a transfer of land to have been fabricated. The respondent now appealed against refusal of leave to appeal out of time, saying that new evidence had come to light.
Held: Leave was refused. ‘This court can only interfere with that discretion if the judge took into account factors that were legally irrelevant, failed to take into account factors that were legally relevant, or reached a decision that was plainly wrong in the sense of being outside the band within which reasonable people might disagree. Mr Cawsey, in the course of his oral submissions, has not submitted that the judge went outside that band in the sense that his judgment was perverse. Accordingly, it is necessary for him to identify either some legally relevant matter which the judge failed to take into account, or alternatively to show that the judge took into account some legally irrelevant matter.
In my judgment, Mr Cawsey has not demonstrated that the judge did either of those things. The furthest that he went was to say that the judge gave insufficient weight to the administration of justice. But weight is a matter for the person exercising the discretion; it is not a matter upon which an appellate court can interfere, unless the weight given to the particular matter is so wrong as to make the decision as a whole perverse.’ There was an unexplained additional delay in the filing of the appeal.

Judges:

Pill, Lloyd, Lewison LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1012

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.463073

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.

Judges:

Nourse, Kennedy, Roch LJJ

Citations:

Ind Summary 13-Jun-1994, Times 10-May-1994, [1994] EWCA Civ 12, [1994] Ch 370, [1994] 4 All ER 96, [1995] 1 FLR 212, [1995] Fam Law 132, [1994] 3 WLR 593

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Charging Orders Act 1979 2(1), Land Registration Act 1925

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromClark 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 by:

CitedGold 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.

Registered Land

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.79181

Norfolk Naturalists Trust v Lumley, Ellison (0939): LRA 23 Sep 2011

LRA (Rivers, Waterways and Foreshore) Accretion and diluvion – effect of change in Mean High Water Mark – principles of construction of pre-registration deeds – purported grantor of land without a title subsequently acquiring title to the same land – estoppel perfecting grantor’s title – effect on subsequent purchaser

Citations:

[2011] EWLandRA 2010 – 0939

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoNorfolk Naturalists Trust v Lumley, Ellison (0940) LRA 23-Sep-2011
LRA (Rivers, Waterways and Foreshore : Accretion and Diluvion) Accretion and diluvion – effect of change in Mean High Water Mark – principles of construction of pre-registration deeds – purported grantor of land . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.465872

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 appeal succeeded, but the matter remitted to the adjudicator.

Judges:

Morgan J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1248 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 2002 60(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedStarclass Properties Ltd v Dudgeon 2006
Where there was no hearing before the Deputy Adjudicator, any appeal would be by way of a re-hearing . .
CitedWigginton and Milner Ltd v Winster Engineering Ltd CA 7-Dec-1977
Various conveyances had dealt with land. By mistake, certain land was excluded from the plans.
Held: The plan had been included ‘for identification purposes only’, but that did not mean that the plan was to be disregarded. It could not . .
CitedPennock 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 . .
CitedIn re White’s Charities; Charity Commissioners v Mayor of London 1898
There is no distinction in law between a highway in the country and a street in a town. Where the grantor of a right of way owns the entire width of the land, the presumption applies to the entire width and not only ad medium filum.
Romer J . .
CitedDerbyshire 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 . .
CitedHolmes v Bellingham 24-Jun-1859
In the lower court, the judge had directed the jury that there was a presumption, in the case of a private way or occupation road between two properties, that the soil of the road belongs usque ad medium filum viae to the owners of the adjoining . .
CitedSmith v Howden 20-Apr-1863
A green lane leading to land went between plots owned by the owner and by his neighbour. There was no evidence as to the ownership of the land. The jury were informed that they could assume that the plots on either side owned a moiety of the land, . .
CitedGiles v County Building Constructors (Hertford) Limited ChD 1971
A right of way had arisen by prescription in favour of land which had two detached dwelling houses on it.
Held: The right of way could continue to be used, even after the two houses had been demolished and replaced by a three-storey block of . .
CitedSt Edmundsbury v Clark (No 2) ChD 1973
Megarry J described the presumption that a conveyance of land abutting a highway or river passes with it the the adjoining half of that road or river: ‘Various reasons had been given for the presumption. It has been based on convenience and the . .
CitedWigginton and Milner Ltd v Winster Engineering Ltd CA 7-Dec-1977
Various conveyances had dealt with land. By mistake, certain land was excluded from the plans.
Held: The plan had been included ‘for identification purposes only’, but that did not mean that the plan was to be disregarded. It could not . .
CitedCommission for New Towns and Another v JJ Gallagher Ltd ChD 16-Dec-2002
Where a conveyance did not expressly include an adjoining road, there was no statutory presumption which would lead to its inclusion.
Held: The section referred to incorporeal rights, easements and similar, and not to land itself. The Act did . .

Cited by:

Main judgmentPaton and Another v Todd ChD 21-Jun-2012
The court considered the costs award to be made on the appeal to the High Court from a Land registry adjudicator.
Held: No costs order should be made. . .
Remitted fromWilliam Gardner Paton, Sharon Paton v Adrian Todd (Alteration and Rectification of The Register : Mistake) LRA 11-May-2012
LRA Alteration of register- rectification- whether applicants have paper title to disputed strip- applicants not having paper title but respondent not showing pre-registration title to the disputed land- whether . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.457620

IAM Group Plc v Chowdrey: CA 15 Mar 2012

Appeal against rejection of claim for possession of land subject to adverse possession claim, and against order for registration of the defendant as registered proprietor.

Judges:

Thorpe, Etherton LJJ, Ryder J

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 505

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 2002 98(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Limitation, Registered Land

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.452996

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 if that claim is not justiciable in the English courts, and is disputed by the registered proprietor.

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1559 (Ch), [2010] 1 P and CR 5, [2010] 1 P and CR 5, [2010] Ch 200, [2010] 2 WLR 555

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Registration Rules 2003 (SI 2003 No 1417) 93, Land Registration Act 2002 42(1)(c)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedJayasinghe v Liyanage ChD 18-Feb-2010
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.347311

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 and characteristics of the property. The Land Registry plan showed the boundary at the top of the bank. This matched a later boundary fence. Though the parties had orally agreed that the boundary should be at the foot of the bank, the precise location of the fence was identified, and a fence was erected in the agreed position. It would now be unconscionable for the Chadwicks to assert a claim to ownership of the bank.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Lewison

Citations:

[2004] EWCH 1058 (Ch), [2004] All ER (D) 213

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedAlan Wibberley Building Ltd v Insley HL 24-Mar-1999
The parties disputed ownership of a strip of land between a garden and a farm. The land was registered. There was a hedge and a ditch along the disputed boundary, it had been conceded in the Court of Appeal that a conveyance of land on the hedge . .
CitedPartridge and others v Lawrence and others CA 8-Jul-2003
The appellants challenged a finding as to the width of a right of way over their land as exercised by the respondents.
Held: The appeal was allowed in part. Peter Gibson LJ said: ‘The claimants now have the security that this court is . .
CitedEastwood v Ashton HL 1915
Toi Identify Land, Court to Find True Meaning
A contract described the property and referred to a plan attached. The conveyance used four indications: the farm sold was said to be called by a given name, to contain 84 acres odd ‘or thereabouts’, and to be in the occupation of two different . .
CitedEastwood v Ashton HL 1915
Toi Identify Land, Court to Find True Meaning
A contract described the property and referred to a plan attached. The conveyance used four indications: the farm sold was said to be called by a given name, to contain 84 acres odd ‘or thereabouts’, and to be in the occupation of two different . .
CitedJackson v Bishop CA 1979
Where the definition of the parcels in a conveyance or transfer is not clear, then the court must have recourse to extrinsic evidence, and in particular to the physical features on the ground: ‘It seems to me that the question is one which must . .
CitedRogers and Another v Freeguard and Another CA 19-Oct-1998
The parties had drawn up and executed an option agreement. When a court considered an option to purchase ‘land known as . .’, it was able to consider extrinsic evidence to establish just what was included where the identification in the deed was . .
CitedScott v Martin 1987
When construing a land contract, the parties should not readily be assumed to have intended to act in breach of planning requirements . .
CitedLee v Barrey CA 1957
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, . .
CitedHambrook 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. . .
CitedCutlan v Atwell CA 30-Nov-1994
The general boundaries rule does not mean that the plan on a transfer may be ignored. . .
CitedJoyce v Rigolli CA 2-Feb-2004
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 . .
CitedTaylors Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd ChD 1981
The fundamental principle that equity is concerned to prevent unconscionable conduct permeates all the elements of the doctrine of estoppel. In the light of the more recent cases, the principle ‘requires a very much broader approach which is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land, Estoppel

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.196997

Brighton and Hove City Council v Gibney, Gibney As Personal Representatives of The Late Thomas Edward Gibney: LRA 27 Sep 2012

LRA Charges and Charging Orders – The Respondents have no arguable case in law on the facts alleged by them for contending that the Applicant was not entitled to declare a charge over the above property to secure payment to it of the sums due in respect of the provision of accommodation by it for the late Thomas Edward Gibney under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948

Citations:

[2012] EWLandRA 2012 – 0026

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.465846

Totton and Eling Town Council v Caunter and Another: ChD 11 Jun 2008

The council appealed against an award by the adjudicator of title by adverse possession in favour of the respondents.
Held: The appeal succeeded. On any sensible analysis from the Council’s perspective, the Caunters were entitled to remain in possession of the land until such time as it chose to communicate with them to revoke it, no doubt after first giving them some form of deadline to comply with the formalities. Equally, any reasonable observer would have concluded thus as to the nature and extent of any permission. As at 1994, therefore, the implied licence still ran but upon transfer of the land from the Council to the appellant any implied licence arising by reason of the negotiations is likely to have been revoked by operation of law.

Judges:

Waksman QC J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 3630 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedBP Properties Ltd v Buckler CA 31-Jul-1987
The putative owner of the paper title wrote to the defendant who occupied the relevant property in October 1974 as follows: ‘Since we wish to help you as much as possible we are prepared to allow you to remain in occupation of the house and garden . .
CitedLondon 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 . .
CitedBath and North Somerset District Council v Nicholson ChD 22-Feb-2002
The defendant occupied a house belonging to the claimant Council as a squatter. He undertook various improvements, on occasion assisted by the Council. There were then protracted and sporadic negotiations for a lease between 1982 and 1988 but no . .
CitedBatsford 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 . .
CitedSandhu and Another v Farooqui and Another CA 3-Mar-2003
A claim to title by adverse possession was made by a purchaser of a flat owned by the defendants who had been let into possession pending completion of the intended sale, which completion never in fact occurred.
Held: Chadwick LJ said: ‘In . .
CitedMeeruppe Sumanatissa Terunnanse v Warakapitiye Pangnananda Terunnanse PC 23-Jan-1968
Ceylon – A bare licence terminates on the transfer of the licensor’s own title. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.406170

Drake and Another v Fripp: CA 3 Nov 2011

This judgment is concerned with the assessment of costs following a half day hearing of a boundary dispute appeal, which was dismissed.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger MR, Aikens, Lewison LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 1282, [2012] 2 Costs LR 264

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Main JudgmentDrake 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.

Land, Costs

Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448136