Kingsalton Ltd and Another v Thames Water Developments Ltd and Others: ChD 19 Jan 2001

The fact of possession of land by the registered proprietor was a factor to be given special effect when a court considered an application to rectify the register. The presumptions following from the registration of the land with title absolute, meant that possession of the land gave the proprietors ownership unless, and until, that presumption was displaced, and the Act gave the judge a discretion.

Citations:

Times 27-Feb-2001, Gazette 26-Apr-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1215, [2001] EWCA Civ 20

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Administration of Justice Act 1977, Land Registration Act 1925 82

Cited by:

CitedMalory 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 . .
CitedPinto v Lim ChD 19-Apr-2005
The parties had been owners of a property. The defendant was thought to have forged a transfer of the house into her sole name, and then sold on the property to her brother, who was innocent of the forgery. The claimant, on returning to England . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135613

Central London Commercial Estates Ltd v Kato Kagaku Ltd and Another, Axa Equity and Law Assurance Society Plc (Third Party): ChD 15 Jul 1998

Where a squatter had acquired adverse possession rights against lessee, but had not yet applied for registration, a surrender of the registered leasehold did not defeat his claim but operated as acquisition of lessee’s rights.
The court was asked ‘whether, after more than 12 years’ adverse possession by a trespasser, the registered leaseholder of land can, by surrendering the remainder of his term to the freeholder, give the latter a right to immediate possession against the erstwhile squatter. In relation to unregistered land the answer, on House of Lords’ authority, is yes. The issue is whether the provisions of the Land Registration Act 1925, centrally section 75, produce a different outcome in registered conveyancing.’
Held: Where a squatter had acquired adverse possession rights against lessee, but had not yet applied for registration, a surrender of the registered leasehold did not defeat his claim but operated as acquisition of lessee’s rights.

Judges:

Sedley J

Citations:

Times 27-Jul-1998, Gazette 22-Jul-1998, Gazette 30-Sep-1998, [1998] EWHC Ch 314, [1998] EGCS 117, [1998] 4 All ER 948, [1998] 3 EGLR 55, [1998] 46 EG 185

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 7(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78953

Winterburn and Another v Bennett and Another (Easements and Profits A Prendre : Easements of Parking): LRA 21 Oct 2013

LRA Easement – right of way – right to park – right to unload – prescription – force – nec vi – extent of jurisdiction

Citations:

[2013] EWLandRA 2013 – 0081

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At LRAWinterburn and Another v Bennett and Another CA 25-May-2016
The court was asked as to the steps which an owner of land must take to prevent others, who were using the land without permission, acquiring rights over the land. The claimants here had ignored clear signs placed on the land which asserted the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.546244

Brown and Root Technology Ltd and Another v Sun Alliance and London Assurance Comp Ltd: CA 19 Dec 1996

The claimant had a personal right to exercise a break clause in a lease of which it was the registered proprietor, that right coming to an end when it assigned the lease. The lease was assigned to another company within the group which took over payment of the rent: but BandR was never registered as proprietor. Technology exercised the break clause. The question was whether it had lost the right to do so because it had ‘assigned’ the lease.
Held: The lease was not to be treated as having been assigned. An assignment of a registered lease was invalid until registered at HMLR even though it has been accepted by the Landlord.
Mummery LJ said: ‘This case is not a matter of beneficial ownership between parties to the transfer of the lease: the issue of assignment or no assignment affects the legal position of a third party, the lessors, who have given their licence to assign but are not a party to the transfer . . Transfer of the beneficial title is not, in this context, relevant to the legal relationship between the lessees and the lessors. The issue is not what rights Technology and B and R have against each other, but what rights Technology and [the lessors] have against each other. That is a question of legal, not equitable, rights.’

Judges:

Butler-Sloss, Mummery LJJ, Sir Ralph Gibson

Citations:

Gazette 19-Feb-1997, Times 27-Jan-1997, [1996] EWCA Civ 1261, (1996) 75 P and C R 223, [2001] Ch 733

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See AlsoBrown and Root v Sun Alliance CA 2001
Until there has been a transfer in accordance with the provisions of the Land Registration Act the legal title to the estate remains with the vendor . .
CitedClarence House Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc ChD 23-Jan-2009
The claimant landlord alleged that the defendant tenant had transferred the lease under a ‘virtual assignment’ and that this was in breach of its lease.
Held: The Abbey National case was not helpful. However, the arrangement was not a breach . .
AppliedRenshaw v Magnet Properties South East LLP 2008
(Central London County Court) . .
AppliedLankester and Son Ltd v Rennie and Another CA 2-Dec-2014
The transfer of a lease remained unregistered.
Held: The court acknowledged the importance of not confusing the equitable rights as between transferor and transferee with the legal rights as between landlord and tenant. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Registered Land

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78692

Starclass Properties Ltd v Dudgeon: 2006

Where there was no hearing before the Deputy Adjudicator, any appeal would be by way of a re-hearing

Citations:

[2006] All ER (D) 203

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Registered Land

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.538892

Chancery Plc v Ketteringham: ChD 27 Oct 1993

Where a charge had been registered with priority over a caution with the consent of the cautioner, the registered charge has priority over the caution, and the proprietor of the charge can sell the land free of the cautioner’s rights.

Citations:

Times 25-Nov-1993, Independent 27-Oct-1993

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 54

Registered Land

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.78973

Collings v Lee: CA 2001

The claimants asked the defendant to find a purchaser for their house for a fee. Pretending to be a purchaser under an assumed name, he obtained from them the documents necessary to register the transfer, and received a further payment towards the deposit on a new house. He was registered as proprietor, and obtained a substantial advance on a first charge to a building society. He was later convicted of fraud. C, still in possession, received no money for the sale of their house, and none of the other payments was returned. In a dispute between the Collings and the Building Society, the issue was whether their interest was ‘an overriding interest’ as that of a ‘person in actual occupation’. The Society, relying on Lonrho and Twinsectra argued, ‘ . . that the transfer of the property to the first defendant was not void, but voidable by Mr and Mrs Collings; that unless and until they avoided it they had no subsisting equitable interest in the property, their right to avoid it being a ‘mere equity’; and that such a right does not fall within s 70(1)(g).’
Held: The argument was rejected: ‘The rationale of the principle, as it applies to a transfer of property, is that even where the transfer is obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation, the transferor nevertheless intends that the whole legal and beneficial ownership in the property shall pass to the transferee. But that was not this case. Mr and Mrs Collings did not intend to transfer the property to the first defendant and they did not intend to transfer it for no consideration. The first defendant acquired the property without their knowledge and consent and in breach of his fiduciary duty to them. The equitable interest remained vested in Mr and Mrs Collings.’

Judges:

Nourse LJ

Citations:

[2001] 2 All ER

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 70)1)(g)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.188812

Prestige Properties Ltd v Scottish Provident Institution and Others: ChD 13 Mar 2002

The claimant sought compensation from the Land Registrar for losses arising from following the results of an index map search. They relied upon a certificate showing certain land to be unregistered, in entering into a contract for its sale. A retention was made against the need to register. The errors caused it to be impossible to obtain the title. The registry argued that the search should have led the claimant to make further enquiries.
Held: the rules were simple. The search certificate was incorrect. Under the Act, compensation was payable where loss was incurred ‘by reason of’ an error in an official search. That did not require the error to be the sole cause of the loss, but merely a cause. The duty of care expected of the Registry was akin to that which was to be expected of a conveyancer, and the certificate was not a signpost to other inquiries and could be relied upon in respect of that which it certified.

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Lightman

Citations:

Times 23-May-2002

Statutes:

Land Registration (Open Register) Rules 1991 (SI 1992 No 122) 9, Land Registration Act 1925 81

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.169993

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 that they had forged the mother’s signature on the transfer. A building society mortgage was taken and registered. Mr and Mrs Hammond defaulted on the mortgage, and the Society now sought possession. It was accepted that if S had indeed never transferred the property Mr and Mrs Hammond could not create a charge over it. The Society said that the ‘statutory magic’ of registration meant that the charge was nevertheless effective. S contended that that effect could be reversed by the rectification of the Register. On a preliminary issue, assuming the transfer was forged, the County Court held that it had no jurisdiction to make an order for rectification which would deprive the building society of the benefit of its charge.
Held: The original registrant’s appeal succeeded. The effect of section 82(2) of the 1925 Act was that the Court had jurisdiction not only to rectify the Proprietorship Register by restoring S as the registered proprietor but also to rectify the Charges Register by removing the building society’s charge. If it exercised its discretion to do so the society would be entitled to an indemnity under section 83.
Slade LJ summarised: ‘For the reasons already given, there is no doubt whatever that in the present case, on the basis of the assumed facts, the court would have jurisdiction, in the proper exercise of its discretion, to rectify the charges register as against the charges . . section 82(2) makes it clear that the jurisdiction is exercisable against persons claiming through a registered proprietor.’
The Court did not itself order rectification because the statutory discretion could not be exercised until the facts had been found, and the case was transferred to the Chancery Division for a trial.

Judges:

Slade LJ

Citations:

(1984) 49 PandCR 148

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 82(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See AlsoNorwich 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 . .
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: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.535828

Calgary and Edmonton Land Co Ltd v Discount Bank (Overseas) Ltd: ChD 1971

Cautions had been registered against land to protect interests claimed in a pending action. The action had been struck out at first instance, an appeal to the Court of Appeal had failed but a petition for leave to appeal to the House of Lords was still pending.
Held: On an interlocutory notice of motion Brightman J ordered that the register be rectified by vacating the cautions. He had power to make the order either under paragraph (a) or under paragraph (b) and that ‘it matters not whether the order is expressly made under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b).’

Judges:

Brightman J

Citations:

[1971] 1 WLR 81

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 82 83

Cited by:

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.

Registered Land

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.519754

Habermann v Koehler and Another (No 2): CA 22 Nov 2000

A house owner allowed occupiers in and gave a informal option for them to buy it. He later charged it and sold the property to the chargee in satisfaction of the debt. Before buying it the mortgagee enquired of the occupiers as to whether they intended to purchase the property, and their reply did not mention the option. The court held that the enquiry was sufficient enquiry and that though the option was capable of being an overriding interest, the reply was in terms which did not protect that option. The land was taken not subject to the option. The relevant time was on the purchase, not the taking of the mortgage.

Citations:

Times 22-Nov-2000

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 70(1)(g)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Registered Land

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81109

Collinge v Lee and Another: CA 26 Oct 2000

Where land had been registered in the name of a transferee as a result of a fraud and where there had been no consideration and it had been in breach of a fiduciary duty, the owners retained an overriding interest under the act, and the transferee held the land as trustee for the defrauded party. The fraudulent transfer did transfer the legal title, but not any equitable title. The legal title was at all times capable of being set aside, but that was not the limit of the applicants’ rights.

Citations:

Times 26-Oct-2000, Gazette 02-Nov-2000, Gazette 09-Nov-2000

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 70

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land, Equity

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.79276

Brown and Root v Sun Alliance: CA 2001

Until there has been a transfer in accordance with the provisions of the Land Registration Act the legal title to the estate remains with the vendor

Citations:

[2001] Chancery Ch 733

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoBrown and Root Technology Ltd and Another v Sun Alliance and London Assurance Comp Ltd CA 19-Dec-1996
The claimant had a personal right to exercise a break clause in a lease of which it was the registered proprietor, that right coming to an end when it assigned the lease. The lease was assigned to another company within the group which took over . .

Cited by:

CitedCatlin Estates Ltd and Another v Carter Jonas (A Firm) TCC 31-Oct-2005
The defendants had been employed to manage a building project which it was said went wrong. The court had to consider several different factual claims. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.242992

AJ Dunning and Sons (Shopfitters) Ltd v Sykes and Son (Poole) Ltd: CA 1987

A transfer of part of land identified the land by reference to a red line on a plan being part of a registered. The court held that the seller’s covenants of title implied under the rules took effect subject to the interests of the registerd owners of the land not part of the seller’s title.
Held: The buyer’s appeal succeeded. The red line did include land not in the seller’s title. ‘The Register’ referred not to the full Land Registry registers, but to the register entries for the particular title at issue. The vendors were liable for the breach of covenant of good title. Lord Justice Dillon: ‘The transfer is concerned to differentiate between three parcels of land . . and it does so exclusively by reference to the plan on the transfer and the colouring on that plan . . the colouring on the plan is thus the dominant description of each parcel . . where parcels in a conveyancing document as described by reference to a plan attached to the documents, the natural inference is that it was the intention that anyone should see from the documents alone, which means from the plan on it what land the document was purporting to pass.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Dillon

Citations:

[1987] Ch 287, [1987] 2 WLR 167

Statutes:

Land Registration Rules 1925 76 77

Cited by:

CitedBeale v Harvey CA 28-Nov-2003
Land had been divided into three lots on its development, but the site plan did not match the line of a fence actually erected.
Held: The court was not bound by the Watcham case, and would not follow it to allow reference to the later . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.235517

Short’s Trustee v Keeper of the Registers of Scotland: IHCS 30 Dec 1993

Trustee may not register decree but can seek to have register amended.

Citations:

Times 30-Dec-1993

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Appeal fromShort’s Trustee v The Keeper of the Registers of Scotland HL 7-Dec-1995
The limited scope for rectification of registered land titles was explained. If the Keeper were to recognise an error of a very minor nature, such as an obvious spelling mistake, he would amend it at his own hand. However, he would not adjust a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Registered Land, Scotland

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.89245

Heywood v BDC Properties Ltd (No 2): CA 1964

The registration of an action as a lis pendens by a non-counterclaiming defendant was held to be an abuse, and although there was no jurisdiction to vacate the registration under the Land Charges Act 1925, the Court had an inherent jurisdiction to prevent ‘an abuse of this sort’ because the registration ‘ought never to have been made’:

Judges:

Harman LJ

Citations:

[1964] 1 WLR 971, [1964] 2 All ER 702

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoHeywood v BDC Properties Ltd (No 1) CA 1963
The registration of a claim was founded on negotiations through correspondence. The Court examined the correspondence, and found that it was clear that there was no possible binding contract existing between the parties, vacated the registration. It . .

Cited by:

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.

Registered Land

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.519751

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 mortgagee to the first defendant ‘subject to and with the benefit of’ the plaintiff’s contract. Three months later the first defendant resold the estate to the second defendant subject to the plaintiffs’ contract so far if at all as it might be enforceable as against the first defendant. The transfer to the second defendant, which was duly registered, did not refer to the plaintiffs’ contract. It was common ground that if the provision in the contract for the sale by the bank to the first defendant was adequate to impose a constructive trust on the first defendant then the effect of the provision in the contract for sale by the first defendant to the second defendant was to impose a similar trust on him.
Held: Both of them had that effect.
Dillon J said: ‘Bearing in mind that there is no basis on which it could be suggested that the bank could be under any obligation to the plaintiffs to complete the house on Plot 29 for them, and bearing in mind the first defendant’s solicitors’ letter to Messrs Strutt and Parker, to which I have referred, I conclude that clause 11 was not inserted in the agreement of October 18, 1979, solely for the protection of the bank, like clause 7 of that agreement which sets out other matters subject to which the property was sold, and I conclude that it was a stipulation of the bargain between the bank and the first defendant that the first defendant would give effect in relation to Plot 29 to the contract which had been made between the vendor company and the plaintiffs.’
He went on to discuss the effect of the 1925 Act: ‘It seems to me that the fraud on the part of the defendants in the present case lies not just on relying on the legal rights conferred by an Act of Parliament, but in the first defendant reneging on a positive stipulation in favour of the plaintiffs in the bargain under which the first defendant acquired the land. That makes, as it seems to me, all the difference. It has long since been held for instance, in Rochefoucauld v. Boustead [1897] 1 Ch. 196, that the provisions of the Statute of Frauds 1677 (29 Car. 2 c.3), now incorporated in certain sections of the Law of Property Act 1925, cannot be used as an instrument of fraud, and that it is fraud for a person to whom land is agreed to be conveyed as trustee for another to deny the trust and relying on the terms of the statute to claim the land for himself. Rochefoucauld v. Boustead was one of the authorities on which the judgment in Bannister v. Bannister [1948] 2 All E.R. 133 was founded.
It seems to me that the same considerations are applicable in relation to the Land Registration Act 1925. If for instance, the agreement of October 18, 1979, between the bank and the first defendant had expressly stated that the first defendant would hold Plot 29 upon trust to give effect for the benefit of the plaintiffs to the plaintiffs’ agreement with the vendor company, it would be difficult to say that the express trust was over-reached and rendered nugatory by the Land Registration Act 1925. The Land Registration Act 1925 does not, therefore, effect the conclusion which I would otherwise had reached in reliance on Bannister v. Bannister and the judgment of Lord Denning M.R. in Binions v. Evans [1972] Ch. 359 had Plot 29 been unregistered land.’

Judges:

Dillon J

Citations:

[1982] 1 WLR 1044, [1982] 2 All ER 953

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

ApprovedAshburn 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 . .
CitedChattey 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 . .
CitedHSBC Bank Plc v Dyche and Another ChD 18-Nov-2009
The parties disputed the claimed beneficial interest of the second defendant. The second defendant (C) said that it had been purchased for him by the first defendant (D) from C’s trustee in bankruptcy, and was thereafter held in trust for him on the . .
CitedChaudhary v Yavuz CA 22-Nov-2011
The court was asked ‘whether and if so how an easement arising informally and not protected by any entry at the Land Registry can be effective against a purchaser of the land over which the easement would be exercised.’ The parties respectively . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land, Contract

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.259721

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 the register kept under the 1979 Act, a person had to show a private interest. The application for alteration of the register was not a vindication of a public right even though, on the facts of the case, it was right to use the foreshore that was in issue.
Lord McCluskey said: ‘In our opinion, there is no answer to this fundamental preliminary point. The scheme of the Act is clear from the full discussion in Short’s Trustee, not only in the House of Lords but also in the Court of Session . . and it need not be discussed here. There is nothing in the present case to suggest that we are here concerned with a vindication of public right of the kind considered by Lord Clyde in Scottish Old People’s Welfare Council, petitioners [1987] SLT 179. This is not a true actio popularis in the sense discussed by Lord Clyde at the passage referred to. The fact, if it be a fact, that the appellants have been interdicted from encroaching upon the subjects or part of the subjects included in the two land certificates in question does not appear to us to give them any title to seek a rectification under the provisions of the 1979 Act. We consider that it is clear that those in unchallenged possession of the subjects (even if not proprietors) have a right to exclude others from encroaching upon them. A proprietor in possession never needed to produce a complete feudal title in order to obtain interdict against encroachments upon his property . . The appellants have never claimed that they had any title whatsoever to the subjects; they claim no competing title. As the appellants themselves acknowledge, persons who were total strangers to Greenock could not have a title to seek rectification under section 9.’

Judges:

Lord McCluskey

Citations:

[1999] SCLR 872

Statutes:

Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

PersuasivePilling 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 . .
CitedWalker 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: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.509112

NRAM Ltd v Evans and Others: CA 19 Jul 2017

Appeal from order directing re-registration of charge over registered land.
Held: It was not a mistake to register a voidable disposition before it was avoided.
The court cited with approval the views of the editors of Megarry and Wade: ‘ ‘Mistake’ is not itself specifically defined in the 2002 Act, but it is suggested that there will be a mistake whenever the Registrar (i) makes an entry in the register that he would not have made; (ii) makes an entry in the register that he would not have made in the form in which it was made; (iii) fails to make an entry in the register which he would otherwise have made; or (iv) deletes an entry which he would not have deleted; had he known the true state of affairs at the time of the entry or deletion. The mistake may consist of a mistaken entry in the register or the mistaken omission of an entry which should have been made. Whether an entry in the register is mistaken depends upon its effect at the time of registration . . . ‘

Judges:

Kitchin, David Richards, Henderson LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 1013, [2017] WLR(D) 491

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.591188

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.
Held: The charging order took priority over the later charge, which, being unregistered, took effect only in equity and was therefore necessarily subordinate to the earlier minor interest.
Plowman J said: ‘the appropriate form of protection for a charging order is a caution.’
Plowman J rejected the plaintiff’s argument based on the absence of notice, referring to s.59(6): ‘It is true, as was stressed in the argument before me, that what the ss. says is that a purchaser is not affected by notice, express, implied or constructive, of matters capable of protection by a caution and not so protected and that (unlike the case of a notice of lease under s.48(1) of the Act) it does not say in terms that a purchaser is affected by a notice of matters capable of protection by caution, which are so protected, but that, in my judgment, is implicit in the scheme of the Act and in the subsection.’

Judges:

Plowman J

Citations:

[1970] Ch 101

Statutes:

Administration of Justice Act 1956 35

Cited by:

CitedClark 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 . .
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: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.536059

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 Register rectified so as to remove the charges in favour of the mortgagees.

Judges:

John Cherryman QC

Citations:

Unreported, 10 June 1994

Statutes:

Land registration Act 1925 82

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: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.536060

Lester v Burgess: 1973

Citations:

(1973) 26 PandCR 536

Cited by:

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.

Registered Land

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.519755

Heywood v BDC Properties Ltd (No 1): CA 1963

The registration of a claim was founded on negotiations through correspondence. The Court examined the correspondence, and found that it was clear that there was no possible binding contract existing between the parties, vacated the registration. It vacated the registration.
Wilmer LJ said: ‘ It seems to me that this is a clear case and that the judge was plainly right. The correspondence relied on as constituting an estate contract was precisely specified and limited to the period between the dates given. With regard to that correspondence, the judge in his judgment said: ‘I will not go through that correspondence in detail. It will be sufficient for me to say that it is clear beyond argument that nothing in that correspondence creates a binding contract as between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The whole correspondence consists of negotiations ‘subject to contract’ for the sale of land, those negotiations being conducted on the basis that a contract would in due course be entered into and that the parties would not be bound until a contract was entered into.’ I entirely agree with what the judge said in that passage; indeed, the contrary has not really been argued; for Mr, Merriton has admitted that on the correspondence as it stands he cannot understand (contend?) that a binding contract was entered into. If that be right, then, it seems to me, the entry which is on the register ought not to be allowed to stand.
Mr. Merriton has, however, indicated that it may be possible, with the aid of documents which are not at present available, and possibly with the aid of oral evidence from a witness, to prove that there was some other contract. Assuming for the sake of argument that he is justified in that contention, it does not seem to me to affect the question whether this particular entry in these terms ought to be allowed to stand. Agreeing, as I do, with the judge that on the correspondence it is quite clear that the alleged contract registered was not a contract, I also agree with him in the conclusion he reached that the previous case of In re Engall’s Agreement was clearly distinguishable.’

Judges:

Wilmer LJ

Citations:

[1963] 1 WLR 975

Cited by:

See AlsoHeywood v BDC Properties Ltd (No 2) CA 1964
The registration of an action as a lis pendens by a non-counterclaiming defendant was held to be an abuse, and although there was no jurisdiction to vacate the registration under the Land Charges Act 1925, the Court had an inherent jurisdiction to . .
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.

Registered Land

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.519750

Terence Charles Palmer v Beaulane Properties Limited (Adverse Possession): LRA 26 Jun 2008

LRA Land Registration Act 1925, s 75 – Human Rights Act 1998, ss. 2,3 – Limitation Act 1980, s 17 – Article I, First Protocol, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – Adjudicator to HM Land Registry (Practice and Procedure Rules) 2003, r11 – stare decisis

Citations:

[2008] EWLandRA 2004 – 0014

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.429596

Best, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice: CA 21 Jan 2015

The court was asked whether an application for a person to be registered under the 2002 Act as the proprietor of a registered estate in land by reason of a period of adverse possession is valid, where part of the relevant period of possession consisted of the occupation of a residential building in circumstances constituting the commission of a criminal offence under section 144 of the 201 Act.

Judges:

Arden, McCombie, Sales LJJ

Citations:

[2015] EWCA Civ 17, [2015] 4 All ER 495, [2016] QB 23, [2015] 3 WLR 1505, [2015] CP Rep 18, [2015] HLR 17

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 2002, Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedPatel v Mirza SC 20-Jul-2016
The claimant advanced funds to the respondent for him to invest in a bank of which the claimant had insider knowledge. In fact the defendant did not invest the funds, the knowledge was incorrect. The defendant however did not return the sums . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.541582

Frazer 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 entitled to found on his registered title in proceedings for possession against the other joint proprietor.
Held: The Board referred to the idea of the indefeasibility of title with registered land: ‘The expression, not used in the Act itself, is a convenient description of the immunity from attack by adverse claim to the land or interest in respect of which he is registered, which a registered proprietor enjoys. This conception is central in the system of registration. It does not involve that the registered proprietor is protected against any claim whatsoever; as will be seen later, there are provisions by which the entry on which he relies may be cancelled or corrected, or he may be exposed to claims in personam. These are matters not to be overlooked when a total description of his rights is required. But as registered proprietor, and while he remains such, no adverse claim (except as specifically admitted) may be brought against him.’

Judges:

Lord Wilberforce

Citations:

[1967] AC 569

Citing:

CitedBreskvar 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 . .

Cited by:

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.

Commonwealth, Registered Land

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.242119

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 sought rectification of the register.
Held: The fact that a forgery had taken place was not conclusive to decide the issue. It was not the case that rectification should be ordered only where it would be unjust not to. The fact of possession was significant, but not so that the fact of possession was decisive either. There were two innocent parties, and one would be entitled to an indemnity. The value of the property had increased substantially since the transaction, Mr Lim was in possession of the property, and the value of the claimant’s share in the property at the time was small. Recification against the defendant was refused.

Judges:

Blackburne J

Citations:

Times 08-Jun-2005, [2005] EWHC 630 (Ch)

Citing:

CitedKingsalton Ltd and Another v Thames Water Developments Ltd and Others ChD 19-Jan-2001
The fact of possession of land by the registered proprietor was a factor to be given special effect when a court considered an application to rectify the register. The presumptions following from the registration of the land with title absolute, . .

Cited 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: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.226036

Re Dance’s Way: CA 1962

The chief land registrar should not decide the construction of an instrument, under the power conferred on him by rule 298(1) of the Land Registration Rules, where there was a dispute of the fact as to the surrounding circumstances, but he should refer the matter to the court in pursuance of the power conferred on him by rule 298(2) of those Rules.

Citations:

[1962] Ch 490

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedWhitmey, Regina (on the Application of) v the Commons Commissioners CA 21-Jul-2004
The applicant sought to leave to appeal against refusal of his challenge to the registration of land as a green.
Held: The 1965 Act did not limit the registration of greens to those which were registered by 3 January 1970. The Commons . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.199366

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 an overriding interest as regards the garage. His right was protected under section 70(1). The court rejected a submission based on section 59 of the Act.

Judges:

Vinelott J

Citations:

(1985) 49 PandCR 212

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 59 70(1)(g)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

FollowedBridges 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 . .

Cited by:

CitedFerrishurst 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 . .
CitedTiffany Investments Ltd and Another v Bircham and Co Nominees (No 2) Limited and others CA 4-Dec-2003
The tenancy was a long lease at a low rent under the 1954 Act, and so had continuing protection under the 1977 Act whilst occupied by the original tenant. The lease was assigned and registered. It had been conditional upon an application to purchase . .
CitedChaudhary v Yavuz CA 22-Nov-2011
The court was asked ‘whether and if so how an easement arising informally and not protected by any entry at the Land Registry can be effective against a purchaser of the land over which the easement would be exercised.’ The parties respectively . .
CitedChaudhary v Yavuz CA 22-Nov-2011
The court was asked ‘whether and if so how an easement arising informally and not protected by any entry at the Land Registry can be effective against a purchaser of the land over which the easement would be exercised.’ The parties respectively . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.187683

London 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. The expression ‘registered land’ is not used in the Act ‘in an exclusively territorial sense’.

Judges:

Brightman J

Citations:

[1971] Ch 499

Statutes:

Registered Land Act 1925 70(1)(g)

Cited by:

CitedFerrishurst 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.187685

Webb 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 options to purchase are overriding interests or rights within s. 70(1)(g), and not what may constitute notice of those rights.’ Citing National Provincial, he said, ‘In section 70(1)(g) itself, notice is covered by the concluding words ‘save where enquiry is made of such person and the rights are not disclosed.’ Thus, in this very subsection, ‘the rights’ are contrasted with and therefore are not defined or ascertained by reference to what constitutes notice of these rights. Notice, before the Act, is replaced by the express provision relating to notice in sub-paragraph (g) itself. So, it seems to me, that the question whether an option to purchase is a right within section 70 (1) (g) has to be decided independently of what constitute notice of those rights.’

Judges:

Ungoed-Thomas J

Citations:

[1966] Ch 584

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 70(1)(g)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 . .

Cited by:

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 . .
CitedFerrishurst 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.187682

National 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 interest. A purchaser of land and in particular a reversion to a lease, will take an interest subject to an equitable right only (a) where he has notice, including of course a deemed notice, of the right; and (b) where that right is ‘such that it creates a legal or equitable estate or interest in [that] land’.
Lord Upjohn: ‘Furthermore . . . the [deserted] wife’s occupation is not exclusive against the deserting husband for he can at any moment return and resume the role of occupier without the leave of the wife. Nevertheless, I cannot seriously doubt that in this case in truth and in fact the wife at all material times was and is in exclusive occupation of the home. Until her husband returns she has dominion over the house and she could clearly bring proceedings against trespassers; so I shall for the rest of this opinion assume that the wife was and is in exclusive occupation of the matrimonial home at all material times. ‘

Judges:

Lord Upjohn, Lord Wilberforce

Citations:

[1965] AC 1175

Statutes:

Registered Land Act 1925 70(1)(g)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromNational 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 . .
ApprovedReeves v Pope CA 1914
The potential landlord agreed with the proposed tenant to build a hotel by a date, and the tenant agreed to take a lease when it was ready. The building was late in completion. The tenant took the lease but without prejudice to his claim for . .

Cited by:

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 . .
CitedFerrishurst 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 . .
CitedEdlington Properties Limited v J H Fenner and Co Limited CA 22-Mar-2006
The landlord had assigned the reversion of the lease. There was an outstanding dispute with the tenant defendant who owed arrears of rent, but sought to set these off against a claim for damages for the landlord’s failure to construct the factory in . .
CitedDeutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc v Inland Revenue and Another HL 25-Oct-2006
The tax payer had overpaid Advance Corporation Tax under an error of law. It sought repayment. The revenue contended that the claim was time barred.
Held: The claim was in restitution, and the limitation period began to run from the date when . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.187679

Brookfield Developments Ltd v The Keeper of the Registers of Scotland: 1989

The word ‘inaccuracy’ in section 9(1) of the 1979 Act should be construed widely so as to include any incorrect or erroneous entry in or omission from the Register. The position was that the Keeper could not create something from nothing by an erroneous step.

Citations:

1989 SLT (LT) 105

Statutes:

Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979 9(1)

Cited by:

CitedSafeway Stores Plc v Tesco Stores IHCS 6-Jun-2003
The parties appealed a decision of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland ordering rectification of the land register. A small area had been registered to two registers, and an error had occurred on the digitisation of the plan.
Held: The system of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Registered Land

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.183238

Chowood v Lyall (No 2): CA 1930

The transferees of land registered themselves as first registered proprietors of land including two narrow strips of woodland. The court had found that the strips in fact belonged to a neighbour who had acquired title by adverse possession.
Held: A landowner may have sufficient standing to sue the registered proprietor of land for trespass even without seeking rectification of the register because it is the true owner and has a better right to possession. The 1925 Act allowed for rectification of the registers.

Citations:

[1930] 2 Ch 156, [1930] LJ Ch 405, [1930] LT 546

Statutes:

Land Transfer Act 1875, Land Registration Act 1925 147

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMalory 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.183013

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 registration of a charge is not to be defeated by a minor error – compensation payable. The 1925 Act is an Act of exceptionally low quality.

Judges:

Ferris J

Citations:

Gazette 02-Dec-1992, [1994] Ch 370, [1992] EWHC 1 (Ch), [1993] 2 All ER 936, [1993] Fam Law 579, [1993] 2 FLR 500, (1993) 65 P and CR 186, [1993] 2 WLR 141

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 75, Land Registration Rules 1925 218, Charging Orders Act 1979 2(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedIrani Finance Ltd v Singh CA 1970
Two brothers had acquired land as joint tenants with the aid of a mortgage. Distinct orders were made against each of them charging their respective interests in the land. The mortgagee assigned the mortgage. The brothers held under a trust for . .
CitedParkash 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.
CitedNational Westminster Bank Ltd v Allen ChD 1971
The defendants, a husband and wife, were jointly and severally liable on two joint accounts which were overdrawn. The defendants were joint owners of a house property as joint tenants holding on trust for sale. The plaintiff was seeking a charging . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromClark 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. . .
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: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.79180

Knights Construction (March) Limited v Roberto Mac Limited, The Chief Land Registrar (Fraud, Forgery, Duress and Undue Influence): LRA 9 Feb 2011

LRA On voluntary first registration in 2007, the land registered by mistake included land the paper title to which was vested in the Applicant. It adjoined a block of flats and shops and was used, for the most part under rights granted by their leases, for car parking and waste bins by the tenants. One part was fenced off with the common parts of the flats and had been used as a drying area by the tenants but was now derelict. The car parking area had been tarmaced by the Applicant in 1985 when the development was built but had been neglected since then and was open to the road. The newly registered proprietor sold the land with the adjoining building to the Respondent in 2009, and the transfer was registered. The Respondent cleared and fenced the land, but was immediately met with protests from the tenants and the Applicant. The fencing was then removed and pending resolution of the dispute as to ownership the land was used for parking by all parties and continued to be used for the residential tenants’ bins. Most of the tenancies were on long leases without any rent being payable. There were two flats let on assured shorthold tenancies.
Held: 1. The Respondent was not in possession of the land for the purposes of paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 to the Land Registration Act 2002.
2. The Applicant was in actual occupation of the fenced off drying area in a manner that should have been obvious to the Respondent on a reasonably careful inspection, so that the Respondent’s registered title was subject to the Applicant’s interest by virtue of paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the Land Registration Act 2002 and the Applicant was entitled to have the register altered to remove that land from the Respondent’s title.

Citations:

[2011] EWLandRA 2009 – 1459

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.429534

Best v The Chief Land Registrar and Another: Admn 7 May 2014

The court was asked whether the criminalising of trespass to land in the 2012 Act had altered the running of time in applications for registration of title to land by adverse possession.

Judges:

Ouseley J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 1370 (Admin), [2014] WLR(D) 211

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, Land Registration Act 2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.525071

Pinekerry v Needs (Contractors): CA 1992

In an area of compulsory first registration, unregistered land was bought but no application made to register the title within two months. The purchaser then contracted for its sale.
Held: In a contract for the sale of land, the vendor agrees to convey the legal estate, and until he had been registered he did not have such a title. The anticipation of registration was insufficient to found a notice to complete.

Citations:

(1992) 64 P and CR 245 CA, [1993] CLY 573

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 123(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.180635

Baker and Another v Craggs: CA 16 May 2018

‘The novel issue raised by this appeal is whether the doctrine of overreaching in section 2(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (‘LPA 1925′) is capable of operating in circumstances where the conveyance to a purchaser which is alleged to have the overreaching effect is the grant of an easement over land, and the equitable interest which is said to be overreached is not an interest in the easement itself, or even in the land conveyed to the purchaser with the benefit of the easement, but an interest in the servient tenement which the common vendor has previously contracted to sell to a third party, and which (following completion of that sale) the vendor holds as a bare trustee for the third party pending registration of his title with HM Land Registry.’

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 1126, [2018] WLR(D) 299

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 2(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land, Land

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.616320

Arnold v Mann, Mann, Daniel, Daniel, Brooks, Quittelier, Scanlan: LRA 22 Mar 2018

Adverse possession claim in respect of one end of a service road, which was then unregistered land and not highway. Held that the Applicant had failed to demonstrate factual possession prior to resurfacing and effective enclosure in 2016. Previous acts were equivocal and almost all consistent with exercise of rights of way and parking. The acts were also insufficiently overt and did not demonstrate the necessary intention to possess.

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 210 (PC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.616310

Surrey County Council v Burt: LRA 16 Sep 2010

LRA Charges and Charging Orders : Charges Imposed Pursuant To Statute – A local authority which has provided accommodation under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948, following the refusal of the Primary Care Trust to provide care and accommodation, and has properly declared a charge over the property of the person for whom accommodation has been provided is entitled to have that charge registered at the Land Registry notwithstanding that there is an outstanding appeal against the decision of the Primary Care Trust which, if successful, could result in the sums in question being reimbursed to the local authority by that Trust.

Judges:

Michael Mark

Citations:

[2010] EWLandRA 2005 – 1677

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 18 April 2022; Ref: scu.517424

Flowers v The Chief Land Registrar and Thorpe Estates Limited: UTTC 30 Apr 2018

LAND REGISTRATION – Land Registration Act 2002, section 108(2) – application to First-tier Tribunal to set aside a deed purporting to cancel restrictive covenants and to impose fresh covenants – applicant not a party to the deed – First-tier Tribunal held that applicant did not have standing to apply to set aside the deed – appeal to Upper Tribunal dismissed – when appropriate to make appellant pay the costs of two respondents – summary assessment of costs

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 145 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 2002 108(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609720

Smith v Express Dairy Limited: ChD 1954

Express Dairy (as registered owner) let a shop to Smith, but then transferred its interest to a subsidiary company. The subsidiary did not become registered as owner but nonetheless served notice to quit on Smith.
Held: Unless the subsidiary could be treated as having given notice to quit as agent of Express Dairy the notice to quit was bad, because the reversion remained vested in Express Dairy.

Judges:

Harman J

Citations:

[1954] JPL 45

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedStodday Land Ltd and Another v Pye ChD 7-Oct-2016
The agricultural landlord sold part of his land subject to the respondent’s tenancy to the appellant. Before the transfer was registered, notices to quit were served by both the landlord and his buyer. The tenant challenged both notices in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Registered Land

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.570350

Elias v Mitchell: 1972

A caution against dealings can only be registered to protect some form of interest in land

Citations:

[1972] Ch 652

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedKastner v Jason, Sherman, Sherman and Sherman, Sherman and Kastner ChD 23-Mar-2004
The parties had a dispute arbitrated by the Beth Din, who ordered the sale of a property. In apparent breach of that order the owner purported to sell the property. The claimant had registered a caution which the defendants now sought to be vacated. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.196026

Hambrook v Fox: CA 8 Feb 1993

The general boundaries rule does not mean that the plan used in a contract or transfer may be ignored.

Judges:

Peter Gibson LJ

Citations:

Unreported, 8 February 1993

Statutes:

Land Registration Rules 1925 278

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHunt v Weston Homes Plc ChD 31-Oct-2003
Neighbouring land owners disputed the boundary of their registered plots.
Held: The plans provided to the court and those based upon the land registry were inadequate properly to identify the boundaries. One plan of unspecified origin did give . .
CitedGeoffrey Allan Chadwick, Sylvia Joyce Chadwick, Edward James Chadwick v Abbotswood Properties Ltd, Gordon Leonard Hauser, Pamela Ann Hauser, Rectory Pump Ltd ChD 18-May-2004
Between to new houses was a steep bank. Who owned it? Before the transfer there had been different plans and much correspondence.
Held: Where there was doubt as to the extent of land transferred, the court could look to the physical boundaries . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land, Legal Professions

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.187486

Paige v Webb: CA 26 Jul 2001

The claimant sought rescission of a consent order for specific performance made in an earlier action. The purchasers had not complied simply with the order, but had sought to bring back certain parts of the original contract.
Held: Once an order for specific performance has been made, the matter of how the contract is to be performed lies with the court, not the parties. The consent order itself referred back to the contract, and the remaining conditions still applied. The consent order should not be rescinded on these grounds. The seller had refused to complete without delivering a deed of rectification, nevertheless that would not in the circumstances pose any practical problem.

Judges:

Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice Mummery, Sir Anthony Evans

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1220

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 110(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedSingh v Nazeer 1979
Once an order for specific performance has been made by the court, the parties have put it into the hands of the court as to how the contract is to be carried out. The provisions of the order regulate how the contract is to be carried out. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Contract, Litigation Practice, Registered Land

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.159907

Overseas Investment Services Ltd v Simcobuild Construction Ltd and Another: CA 21 Apr 1995

Grant of s38 rights in a Highways agreement didn’t operate as grant of future public rights of way, nor create an overriding interest.

Citations:

Ind Summary 12-Jun-1995, Times 21-Apr-1995

Statutes:

Highways Act 1980 38(3)(b), Land Registration Act 1925 70(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromOverseas Investment Services Ltd v Simcobuild Construction Ltd and Another ChD 2-Nov-1993
A section 38 agreement was an overriding interest, and created a public right which was binding on purchaser. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Registered Land

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84497

Overseas Investment Services Ltd v Simcobuild Construction Ltd and Another: ChD 2 Nov 1993

A section 38 agreement was an overriding interest, and created a public right which was binding on purchaser.

Citations:

Times 02-Nov-1993

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 70(1)(a)

Cited by:

Appeal fromOverseas Investment Services Ltd v Simcobuild Construction Ltd and Another CA 21-Apr-1995
Grant of s38 rights in a Highways agreement didn’t operate as grant of future public rights of way, nor create an overriding interest. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84498

Oceanic Village Ltd v United Attractions Ltd, Shirayama: ChD 9 Dec 1999

The tenant sought an injunction against its neighbour and landlord to prevent it letting an adjoining property without a restriction similar to the one in its own lease. The claimants sought reassurance from the defendant tenants of the adjoining propery that they would act in accordance with the retriction, but no re-assurance was given.
Held: The claimants were prevented under the 1925 Act from registering a notice, and the defendants took the lease with notice of the restriction. However, the words ‘any demised premises’ in the 1995 Act referred to the premises demised by the particular lease in question, and not to any other premises demised by the landlord. Having granted a lease of part to the claimant covenanting not to allow any other part to be used as a gift shop, the landlord demised another part to the first defendant without incorporating a similar restriction. The landlords were not to be injuncted not to do something which they would not themselves be doing, but which would be done by another tenant. No notice was registerable.
Neuberger J: ‘In my judgment, while it is right to take into account the fact that the draftsman of the lease has departed from, or has omitted part of, a well-established form of words, that will not, at least on its own, normally be a sufficient reason for not giving the words he has used the natural meaning which they would otherwise bear. The fact that the draftsman has used a different form of words in relation to two provisions of a lease concerned with the same concept, in this case the use to which land is not to be put, is also something which should be taken into account when construing either of those provisions, but, again, I do not consider that it should normally justify departing from the natural meaning of either provision.
While it is appropriate for the court to contrast a provision which falls to be construed with a well-established form of words or with the way in which another provision in the lease is drafted, it is also right for the court to bear in mind the way that leases are drafted in practice. It is well known that draftsmen of leases will frequently use many expressions where one will do – see eg per Hoffmann J in Norwich Union Life Insurance Society v British Railways Board [1987] 2 EGLR 137 at 138 and in Tea Trade Properties Ltd v CIN Properties Ltd [1990] 1 EGLR 155 at 158. Furthermore, draftsmen may take the wording of different clauses from different precedents and different clauses may come from different hands.’

Judges:

Neuberger J

Citations:

Times 19-Jan-2000, [2000] 1 All ER 975, [2000] Ch 234

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 3(5), Land Registration Act 1925 50(1)

Citing:

CitedDarstone Ltd v Cleveland Petroleum Co Ltd 1969
. .
CitedNorwich Union Life Insurance v British Railways Board 1987
The court made reference to the ‘torrential style of drafting which has been traditional for many years’ among draftsmen of covenants in leases. ‘The use of ordinary language to convey meaning often involves subtle discriminations which for most . .
CitedTea Trade Properties Ltd v CIN Properties Ltd ChD 1990
It is not unusual for conveyances to say the same thing twice: ‘… I have never found the presumption against superfluous language particularly useful in the construction of leases. The draftsmen traditionally employ linguistic overkill and try to . .

Cited by:

CitedMorrells of Oxford Ltd v Oxford United Football Club Ltd and Others CA 21-Jul-2000
A covenant on the sale of land for a public house provided that the vendor should not permit the building of licensed premises within half a mile.
Held: The covenant operated personally only. The covenants which might be implied by the section . .
CitedRanson v Ranson CA 13-Dec-2001
There had been protracted ancillary relief litigation between the parties resulting in a final order. Part of the order related to property, but the husband asserted that he was incapable of conveying the property since, because of title . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Registered Land

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84420

Mortgage Corporation Ltd v Nationwide Credit Corporation Ltd, Nationwide Building Society: CA 20 May 1993

A notice of a charge, short of registration, does not give priority over an earlier un-registered charge. The effect of the notice was limited to that stated in the Act.

Judges:

Dillon LJ

Citations:

Times 20-May-1993, [1993] 4 All ER 623, [1994] Ch 49

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 49 106, Administration of Justice Act 1977

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedScott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd and Others SC 22-Oct-2014
The appellant challenged a sale and rent back transaction. He said that the proposed purchaser had misrepresented the transaction to them. The Court was asked s whether the home owners had interests whose priority was protected by virtue of section . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83864

Mohammed Khurshid Khan: SSC 9 Mar 1994

A notice of deposit which had been lodged at the Land Registry was capable of being an encumbrance on the land for benefits law purposes, despite it not being a formal charge on the land under land law. Capital disregard is for fixed period, the onus to justify discharge lay on Adjudication Officer.

Citations:

Gazette 09-Mar-1994, CIS/255/89

Benefits, Registered Land

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83792

D B Ramsden and Co Ltd v Nurdin and Peacock Plc and Another: ChD 14 Sep 1998

The tenant overpaid rent, including a payment in May 1997 on advice that the payment would be recoverable following litigation establishing that it was an overpayment. The court later held that the payments in question were indeed overpayments. The plaintiff then sought repayment of the sums overpaid (including the payment made in May 1997), on the basis that they were made under a mistake of fact, and were therefore recoverable; alternatively, that even if they were made under a mistake of law, it would be right to order repayment.
Held: All the overpayments were recoverable, including the payment made in May 1997, as having been made under a mistake of fact. Where a right to rectify a lease existed, and the tenant assigned the lease, the assignee took as a purchaser for value, and was not bound on that ground, but the right to rectify was also an overriding interest to which he was subject. Rectification is better described as an equitable rather than a discretionary remedy, and is subject therefore to the defences in equity.

Judges:

Neuberger J

Citations:

Times 14-Sep-1998, [1999] 1 EGLR 119, [1999] 1 WLR 1249

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 70(1)(g), Limitation Act 1980 32(1)(c)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoNurdin and Peacock Plc v D B Ramsden and Co Ltd ChD 18-Feb-1999
A mistake of law was sufficient to ground an order for the repayment of money paid under that mistake. It was not necessary for there to be a mistaken belief of a liability to do so, provided the mistake was the cause of the overpayment. . .

Cited by:

See alsoNurdin and Peacock Plc v D B Ramsden and Co Ltd ChD 18-Feb-1999
A mistake of law was sufficient to ground an order for the repayment of money paid under that mistake. It was not necessary for there to be a mistaken belief of a liability to do so, provided the mistake was the cause of the overpayment. . .
CitedTaylor v Rive Droite Music Ltd ChD 6-Jul-2004
The claimant music producer and songwriter had entered into a publishers agreement with the defendant, agreeing to work for it. He now sought to be free to work for another company. The factual background was unclear, and the contract documentation . .
CitedInland Revenue and Another v Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc CA 4-Feb-2005
The company sought repayment of excess advance corporation tax payments made under a mistake of law. The question was the extent of the effect of the ruling in Klienwort Benson, in particular whether it covered sums paid as taxation, and how the law . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land, Equity

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.79753

Short’s Trustee v The Keeper of the Registers of Scotland: HL 7 Dec 1995

The limited scope for rectification of registered land titles was explained. If the Keeper were to recognise an error of a very minor nature, such as an obvious spelling mistake, he would amend it at his own hand. However, he would not adjust a boundary. Once an interest had been registered, in normal circumstances, the Keeper would have no reason to examine an entry for errors, unless they were drawn to his attention by others. In relation to the system of registration of title, a balance had to be struck between the interests of persons possessing competing titles. That balance had been settled in section 9 of the 1979 Act. There was no separate mechanism which could be employed in relation to such problems. An error might be found, possibly years after its occurrence, when it could be very difficult to examine the state of the previous title

Judges:

Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Mustill, Lord Woolf and Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead

Citations:

1996 SC (HL) 14, [1995] UKHL 21, 1996 SCLR 571, 1996 SLT 166

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Appeal fromShort’s Trustee v Keeper of the Registers of Scotland IHCS 30-Dec-1993
Trustee may not register decree but can seek to have register amended. . .

Cited by:

CitedSafeway Stores Plc v Tesco Stores IHCS 6-Jun-2003
The parties appealed a decision of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland ordering rectification of the land register. A small area had been registered to two registers, and an error had occurred on the digitisation of the plan.
Held: The system of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.183239

Lee v Barrie: CA 1957

Plans from Land Registration certificates of title are inadequate to set out boundaries accurately.
Otherwise: Lee v Barrey

Citations:

[1957] Ch 251

Statutes:

Land Registration Rules 1925 278

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHunt v Weston Homes Plc ChD 31-Oct-2003
Neighbouring land owners disputed the boundary of their registered plots.
Held: The plans provided to the court and those based upon the land registry were inadequate properly to identify the boundaries. One plan of unspecified origin did give . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.187485

Bacchus v Maduro: LRA 21 Dec 2017

Beneficial Interests, Trusts and Restrictions : Severance
The Applicant bought a house together with the Respondent’s mother as joint tenants in 1966, and both lived in separate parts. They were not related nor were they in a relationship. Solicitors acting for Respondent and her mother purportedly sent a notice severing the tenancy in November 1995. This led to a restriction being placed on the title. A second notice was allegedly served by Respondent’s daughter in December 2003, when her mother was ill in hospital. Respondent’s died in March 2004. Applicant applied to remove the restriction and claimed that neither notice had been served. Held that both notices had been served in accordance with section 196(3) of the Law of Property Act 1925.

Citations:

[2017] EWLandRA 2017 – 0125

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land, Trusts

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605824

Ellis v Meltzer: LRA 21 Dec 2017

Charges and Charging Orders : Subrogation – By oversight, on completion of a sale of a Property the solicitor (Applicant) failed to secure the discharge of one of 2 charges – balance of the completion monies (after redemption of the other mortgage) were paid to HM Revenue and Customs. After Respondent adjudged bankrupt. Applicant paid a sum equal to the monies paid to HMRC to the bank to secure the discharge of 2nd charge. Applicant then proved in the bankruptcy as an unsecured creditor and received a dividend of part of his debt. Applicant registered a unilateral notice against Respondent’s matrimonial home claiming to be subrogated to the rights of the bank, which held a charge against that property, to secure the balance. Held the unilateral notice be cancelled as the Tribunal was not satisfied that the enrichment Applicant relied upon was unjust and/or that subrogation was an appropriate remedy and because the Applicant had surrendered any claim to security by his proof in the bankruptcy.

Citations:

[2017] EWLandRA 2016 – 0692

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605823

Al-Haddad, and Al-Haddad v Bandheri, and Bandheri: LRA 21 Dec 2017

Adverse Possession : Land Subject To Private or Public Rights of Way – Application to close possessory title to alleyway between two properties. Both parties had an express right of way over the alleyway on foot only. The alleyway was unregistered land and paper owner was not known. Held that the Respondents had fully enclosed the alleyway with locked gates at either end for well over 12 years prior to their registration with possessory title. The alleyway had been incorporated fully into their garden and was used as a flower bed. The fact that the Respondents had an express right of way over the alleyway did not prevent them from acquiring title, but their title is subject to the Applicant’s right to use the alleyway.

Citations:

[2017] EWLandRA 2017 – 0108

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605820